RAMACAST LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) SECTION 33 of the Arbitration Act contemplates an application for three purposes, namely, (i) when it is desired to challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement, (ii) when it is desired to challenge its validity and (iii) when it is desired to have its effect determined. Where a party applying under SECTION 33 desires to have the effect of the arbitration agreement determined, Court is entitled to consider, whether the particular dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. If the Court finds that it is, the arbitrator is the sole Judge of it; but if it does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement the Court is entitled to decline the effect of the arbitration agreement and incidentally the validity of the contract. Admittedly, the questions whether the arbitration agreement was operative and effective or not, whether it should be enforced or not, or whether it was frustrated or not, or whether it fall along with other clauses of the contract or not, are all questions regarding the effect of the arbitration agreement which can only be determined by means of an application under this provision.

(3.) IT is the admitted case of the parties that till today the petitioner have neither deposited the balance security amount of Rs. 45,000.00 nor they have furnished any bank guarantee. The petitioner have also failed to furnish the valid Income Tax Clearance Certificate. So far, the petitioner have not entered into or executed the formal contract.