NARAYAN TRADING COMPANY Vs. ABCOM TRADING PTE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS review petition arises from the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2013 in W.P. No. 8276/2013.

(3.) THE argument, though attractive at the first blush, clearly overlooks the fact brought to our notice by the counsel for the respondent that this specific contention was raised before the trial Court in application under Section 48 of the Act which has been answered vide order dated 08.07.2011. Against that decision the petitioner carried the matter in Writ Petition No. 8186/2011, which has been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.09.2012. From paragraph -3 of the said decision it is noticed that the first contention raised by the petitioner was that he was not party to the arbitration agreement. The writ petition, as aforesaid, was dismissed. Once again this very plea was raised by the petitioner in subsequent petition filed before this Court being Civil Revision No. 20/2013 against the decision of the trial Court dated 07.01.2013 in Execution Case No. 442/2010. In para -6, the learned Single Judge pointedly referred to the plea taken by the petitioner in this behalf. The same has been considered in paragraph -7 and a clear finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioner has forgiven that plea without any leave of the Court and, therefore, it was not permissible for the petitioner to re -agitate the same issue.