SUNIL SOOD Vs. PAVEL GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment, above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of as controversy involved in all the three cases is the same.

(2.) Appellant has filed appeals challenging the impugned orders dtd. 28/12/2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby applications moved by the appellant under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the applications moved by the appellant under Sec. 8 of the Act. At the time of filling up the application form, condition No.28 was incorporated that in case of any dispute the matter shall be referred to arbitration. It was also a term in the application that all the terms in the application form shall merge into the buyer agreement upon the execution of commercial premises buyer's agreement. Although, in the buyer's agreement, there was no such term that in case of any dispute between the parties, the matter shall be referred to the arbitration, but the intention of the parties was clear from the application form. Terms of the application form were liable to be read in the terms of the buyer's agreement.