Madras High Court
CRP PD/2012/2003 of CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & Vs A.RAJAN,S/O.ARUMUGAM on 19 December 2003
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19/12/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19/12/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINARAKANC.R.P.(P.D) No. 2012 of 2003andC.M.P.No. 14594 of 20031. Cholamandalam Investment & FinanceCo., Ltd., rep. through its VicePresident, TIAM House,28, Rajaji Salai,Chennai - 600 001.2. Cholamandalam Investment & FinanceCo., Ltd., rep. through its BranchManager, 24, New Agraharam Street,Palani Road,Dindigul - 2. .....Petitioners
- Vs -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. A. Rajan,S/o. Arumugam2. A. PalaniappanS/o. Arumugamboth residing at15-B, Chellandiamman Koil1st Street,Dindigul - 1. .....RespondentsCivil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, against the order dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of 2002 inO.S.No.109 of 2002 on the file of Second Additional Munsif Court, Dindigul, asstated therein.
!For Petitioner :: Mr. M.B.Raghavan
^For Respondents:: Mr. M. Ajmal Khan
:O R D E RBy consent of both the parties, the main Civil RevisionPetition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the order dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of2002 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 by Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul,refusing to refer the dispute between the parties for arbitration as perclause 23 of the Agreement, marked as Ex.R.1 is justified in law?
3. Admittedly, the respondents herein laid the suit, questioning the very validity of the agreement dated 15.06.2000, whichprovides for arbitration clause. In this regard, I am inclined to referSection 1 6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which reads asfollows:- The arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction,including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validityof the arbitration agreement and or that purpose (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract ;and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract isnull and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitrationclause .
4. As per Section 16(1) of the Act, the question including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of thearbitration agreement also could be dealt with by the arbitral Tribunal.
5. In that view of the matter, the order of the Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of2002 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 is set aside and this petition is allowed. LearnedDistrict Munsif, Dindigul is directed refer the dispute between the parties,without prejudice for arbitration, exercising clause 23 of the agreement. Theconnected C.M.P is closed.
Dpn/-