ML RAVIKRISHNA Vs. SUNEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order is dated 09.03.2011; the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') seeking a stay of the suit had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.14,18,038/ -; a sum of Rs. 11,62,327/ - is the principal amount. Contention is that the defendant had failed to pay these amounts which were due and payable to the plaintiff. In the course of the proceedings, the present application under Section 8 of the said Act was filed; attention has been drawn to invoice dated 17.03.2009 (page 40 of the paper book); clause 3 & 4 have been highlighted; clause 4 which is relevant reads herein as under: -

(3.) THIS submission was repelled by the impugned order and rightly so. The suit amount as noted supra is a principal amount of Rs.11,62,327/ - and even presuming that this payment is covered by the arbitration clause, it is only the amount of Rs.6,62,327/ -; the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/ - which has been claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint relates to a security amount which had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant which amount was initially Rs.10,00,000/ - of which Rs.5,00,000/ - have been refunded but the balance sum was yet to be paid and this has been specifically mentioned in para 10 of the plaint. Admittedly this amount is not encompassed in this document at page 40 of the paper book. Even presuming that document at page 40 contains an arbitration clause since this dispute would be outside the scope of this clause in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported as AIR 2003 SC 252 Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and Another. It is clear that the two claims cannot be bifurcated and as such Section 8 of the said Act would not be attracted. Unless the entire subject matter of the suit is the subject matter of the arbitration agreement, Section 8 would not be attracted.