LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-492

J. MARY HELAN Vs. LISSY BIJU

Decided On July 24, 2012
J. Mary Helan Appellant
V/S
Lissy Biju Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 06.04.2011 made in IA No. 604/2010 in OS No. 162/2010 by the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The respondent herein has instituted a suit in OS No. 162/2010 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil for recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs from the defendant with future interest at 12 per cent p.a. from the date of the plaint till the date of decree and at 6 per cent p.a. till realisation. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff is based on a memorandum of understanding entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant which contained a clause that all the differences and disputes relating to the agreement arising out of the deed shall be resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration Act and the decision of the arbitration shall be final and binding on both the parties. There was exchange of notices between the parties. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant had no intention to perform the legal obligation under the agreement and it was reasonably felt that the defendant has abandoned the agreement. In the said circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money.

(2.) In response to the summons issued by the trial court, the revision petitioner/defendant entered appearance and filed an application in IA No. 604/2010 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 151 and Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the application in IA No. 604/2010, it was the case of the petitioner/defendant that several disputes and differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and the petitioner also raised tenable contentions regarding the liability and alleged disbursement. So, in view of the disputability of the claim, he sought for reference of the dispute to arbitration in view of specific clause in the memo of understanding to refer the dispute for arbitration.