NARAYAN SHANKAR THAKUR Vs. SITABAI SITARAM THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a Special Civil Suit No.252 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner- Orig. Plaintiff, the Trial court has allowed the Application Exhibit 14 for referring the parties to the Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-9 of the Development Agreement dated 14.2.2005. Hence, the original Plaintiff is before this Court in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The Trial Court has recorded the finding that under the Agreement dated 14.2.2005 entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 there subsists Clause-9 for referring the dispute arising out of payment of consideration to the Arbitrator. It has also been held that there is no dispute amongst the parties with respect to the interpretation of the Agreement or concerning any part of the said Agreement.

(3.) Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken me through the copy of the plaint, the Clause-9 of the Arbitration and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. He has referred to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 2(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court in the cases viz.(1) Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Master Ritesh & Ors, 2006 13 SCC 567, (2) Sukanya Holdings (P)Ltd Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr., 2003 5 SCC 531 and (3) S.N. Prasad Hitk Industries (Bihar) Vs. Monnet Finance Ltd. & Ors., 2011 1 SCC 320 and urged that the claim in the plaint is not only against the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 with whom the Agreement, in question, was entered into on 14.2.2005, but also against the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO which has agreed to let out the suit properties to the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 on lease. He therefore submits that there cannot be splitting of claims; one to be referred to the Arbitrator and the another to be dealt with by the Civil Court in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO. He further submits that the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO is not a party to the Agreement dated 14.2.2005 and hence in view of the decisions cited, the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the matter is required to be referred to an Arbitrator.