AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court allowing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a suit praying for recovery of money on the ground that they sold and delivered poly bags and HDPF b
Upon receipt of the summons, the respondents filed a written statement taking various pleas. Along with the written statement, the respondents also filed an application in I.A.
The application under Section 8 is opposed by the petitioner primarily on two grounds, namely, (a) that a mere provision
Drawing our attention to the provisions of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, it is contended by Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senio
But we do not agree. After the advent of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement will be dee an exchange of statements of claim etc. This is by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 7.
It is seen from the pleadings that the respondents placed purchase orders upon the petitioner herein for the sale and del 12. Arbitration: Any disputes or differences whatsoever arising between the parties shall be resolved through Arbitration in The Arbitrators shall be appointed with the mutual consent of both the parties.
It is on the basis of the above purchase order, invoices were raised. Therefore, unless there is any material to sho
Insofar as the second contention is concerned, it is contended by Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, The respondents, according to the learned Senior Counsel, have admitted the sale and delivery but claimed that the cheques we
To find out whether there is an arbitrable dispute between the parties or not, the test is to see whether in response to
Finding that the procedural requirement for referring the parties to arbitration were not satisfied, the Madras High Cou
Therefore, the decision of the Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case.
In the result, both the contentions raised by the petitioner are not capable of being sustained. Hence, the revision is.