LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-161

DIAMOND JEWEL Vs. T.R.C.MURALIDHARAN

Decided On January 23, 2013
S.KRISHNAMURTHY Appellant
V/S
T.R.C.Muralidharan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership firm, the first revision petitioner and for account. In that suit, the revision petitioners filed application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the case to arbitration as there is a clause in the partnership deed for referring any dispute to arbitration and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that it is not necessary in all cases to refer the dispute to arbitration and when complicated questions of law are involved and fraud and misrepresentation are alleged against the parties, the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit even though there is a clause to refer the dispute to arbitration. The learned counsel further submitted that the clause in the partnership deed is not an absolute clause by which the parties shall be directed to refer the dispute to arbitration and there is no mandatory obligation on the part of the party to refer the dispute to arbitration having regard to the clause in the partnership deed and as per the partnership deed, only when the parties mutually agree to refer the matter to arbitration, then the matter can be referred to arbitration and therefore, having regard to the clause in the partnership deed, there is no need to refer the matter to arbitration. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in JAGDISH CHANDER v. RAMESH CHANDER ((2007) 6 MLJ 317 (SC)), OOMOR SAIT, H.G. v. O.ASLAM SAIT (2001 (3) CTC 269) and N.RADHAKRISHNAN v. MAESTRO ENGINEERS ((2010) 1 SCC 72) in support of his contention.