Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 909 (MP)

V. K. Enterprises v. Northern Coalfields Limited

2014-07-28

R.S.JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. It is stated by the counsel for the parties that the facts and dispute in the present case are identical to that of ARBC No. 47 of 2008 and ARBC No. 50 of 2008. 2. It is stated that infact on 04.02.2011 all the three cases were decided together but on account of typographical mistake this case has been left out. Counsel for the parties pray for similar order in the present case. 3. Initially application under section 11 read with section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the applicant before the District Judge, Sidhi. Subsequently due to lack of jurisdiction the District Judge forwarded the matter to this court. Inter alia contending that the applicant is a registered partnership firm registered under Section 58(1) of the Partnership Act 1932 and in pursuance to the same tender floated by the respondents, certain contract was entrusted to the applicant and in the execution of the said work, a dispute has arisen between the parties, this application has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. Even though the applicant has brought on record an arbitration agreement as Annexure-A-8 and submits that there is an arbitration clause. The respondents refute the aforesaid and have stated that the said agreement is not with regard to the particular work. It is the objection of the respondents that when the contract of civil work was awarded, no agreement was entered between the parties and in the absence of agreement, it is the case of the respondents that the application under section 11 is not maintainable. 4. The applicant submits that an agreement was made between the parties but in the original agreement the respondents have not signed, which is an arbitrary decision of the part of the respondents. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that in the present case no concluded agreement is executed between the parties. Even though the applicant is alleged to have executed an agreement, the respondents have not signed the same and in the absence of a concluded agreement, it is the case of the respondents that the application under section 11 is not maintainable. Even though the applicant is alleged to have executed an agreement, the respondents have not signed the same and in the absence of a concluded agreement, it is the case of the respondents that the application under section 11 is not maintainable. Once there is no agreement for resolution of any dispute by Constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, this court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter under section 11 as existence of arbitration agreement between the parties is a pre-condition for maintainability of a application under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and in the absence of such a agreement this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 6. If the applicant has any grievance, he has to resort to the remedy under law but not a proceeding under Section 11. Accordingly, finding no arbitration agreement to be executed between the parties, this application is dismissed and the applicant is granted liberty to take recourse to the remedy as per law. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.