PRASANTA KUMAR PAHARI Vs. GOUTAM GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration on the strength of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement of sale executed by the parties on March 14, 2007. It is not in dispute that the agreement for sale has ultimately culminated in a deed of conveyance being executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on December 8, 2008.

(2.) The respondent perceives that the construction undertaken by the petitioner was of poor quality and the petitioner is liable to compensate the respondent therefor. The respondent has instituted proceedings before the Consumer Forum to such effect. The petitioner has not applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Consumer Forum, but has invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement for sale by issuing a letter to the respondent wherein the petitioner's choice as the petitioner's nominee on the arbitral tribunal has been indicated. The present request under Section 11 of the 1996 Act has been carried to the Chief Justice or his designate upon the respondent failing to respond to the notice or refusing to complete the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

(3.) The petitioner refers to a judgment (Shyam Shell v. West Bengal Minerals Development and Trading Corporation Limited, 2013 4 WbLR 186) for the proposition that an arbitration agreement survives the matrix contract notwithstanding the termination or cancellation of the matrix contract. The proposition is elementary. It is without doubt that an arbitration clause contained in a matrix contract would survive notwithstanding the termination or expiry of the matrix contract, provided the arbitration agreement is not expressly co-terminus with the matrix contract.