RAJ SHEKHAR Vs. GOVIND LAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Photo copy of the plaint in Title Suit No. 93 of 2007 is taken on record.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 28.09.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 93 of 2007 by which application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the dispute for arbitration has been declined.

(3.) Contending that the trial Judge on an erroneous assumption in law that the arbitration clause in the development agreement would not subsist if the development agreement is held bad has dismissed the application under Sec. 8, Mr. Siddharth Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that mere allegation of fraud in the plaint is not sufficient to refuse the application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is contended that the allegation of fraud, which is an after-thought which would become apparent on a reading of the legal notice dated 11.09.2006 in which no such allegation has been made by the plaintiffs, may very well be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal and while so, merely observing that there is an allegation of fraud in the plaint the application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments; (i) "A. Ayyasamy Vs. Paramasivam and Others" reported in AIR 2016 SC 4675, (ii) "Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Others" reported in AIR 2011 SC 2507, (iii) "Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums" reported in AIR 2003 SC 2881, (iv) "Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Verma Transport Company" reported in AIR 2006 SC 2800 and (v) "P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and Others Vs. P. V. G. Raju (died) and Others" reported in AIR 2000 SC 1886.