The scope of Section 8 3 of the Act is also an ancillary issue.
Aurangabad and the land gut number185 to the extent of 4A, 15G purchased in the name of plaintiff number1 and defendant number1 to the extent of 4A, 15G, situated at Dahegaon Tq.
2014/2012 filed by applicants petitioners herein and in fact the evidence on their part i.e. plaintiffs is closed long back and the evidence of defendants is going on and rather the defendants are on the verge of closing their evidence after most probably examining another few witnesses.
Taking into account sub section 3 of Section 8 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would be expedient that pursuant to clause 6 of the partnership deed, a proper person be appointed as arbitrator to entertain dispute between the parties.
The suit proceeded.
and Dist.
The profit from the whole sale kerosene business run through the partnership firm M s S.M. Rana Rana Sahebram Mannulal pursuant to the whole sale kerosene dealers license number20/88 may kindly be recovered from the defendant number.1, 2 and 3 from last three years with 18 interest per annum and it may be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendant number.
237 to the extent of 5H. 85R. situated at Dahegaon Tq.
Gangapur dist.
Gangapur Dist.
The suit is filed by a partnership firm, viz.,
However, the applicants deems it necessary to disclose that applicants have filed one civil suit for declaration and for other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Aurangabad bearing Regular Civil Suit No.2014/2012 having old special civil suit No.211/2009 which is still pending for adjudication.
1, 2 and 3.
Aurangabad and it may also be further declared the said property belongs to the partnership firm and the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the said property being the valid partners of the registered firm and it may also be declared that the plaintiffs are the owners of their respective shares in the said properties.
The defendants appellants had filed an application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 hereinafter referred to as the CPC , as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction since the partnership deed companytained a provision for arbitration and hence the disputes were liable to be resolved in terms of the Act.
Aurangabad and the Plot No.
Gangapur to the extent of 81R and the land gut No.
Appellants are defendant number.
211 of 2009 on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division at Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
Aurangabad and the land Gut No.56 in the name of defendant number3 to the extent of 25R and defendant number5 to the extent of 25R. situated at Sharanapur Tq.
M s. Rana Sahebram Mannulal and three others.
Aurangabad and the land gut number 97/2 admeasuring 1 Acre 34R. situated at Shranapur Tq.
The appellants herein opposed the payer.
Situated at Garkheda, Tq.
and Dist.
Aurangabad and the land gut number186 admeasuring 12A. 7G. purchased in the name of defendant number4 by defendant number1 situated at Dahegaon Tq.
In other words, application filed by defendants, in essence, was to be treated as an application under Section 8 1 of the Act.
Following are the reliefs claimed The special civil suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be decreed with companyts The plaintiffs may kindly be declared as valid partners of the registered partnership firm under the name and style M s S.M. Rana Rana Sahebram Mannulal and further it also may kindly be declared that, the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the land gut number 240 situated at Dahegaon Tq.
Aurangabad, and the land Gut No.
However, the subject mater of the suit involves some third parties also and therefore that would number be an impediment to allow the present application for appointment of the sole arbitrator.
As the said properties are purchased from the nexus and income of the partnership firm and therefore, it may kindly be declared that, the said properties belonging to the partnership firm i.e. M s S.M. Rana Rana Sahebram Mannulal .
The trial companyrt upheld the objection and held that it was within the jurisdiction of the companyrt to try the dispute and, therefore, it was number required under law to refer the same to arbitration.
and Dist.
and Dist.
Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
The same was opposed by the plaintiff.
Aurangabad purchased in the name of defendant number4 is the property of partnership firm.
and Dist.
It may kindly be declared that the property purchased by the defendant number4 bearing land gut number17/2 out of it plot number1 admeasuring 584.36 sq.mtrs.
and Dist.
Situated at Mustafabad Tq.
Once a judicial authority takes a decision under Section 8 1 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act declining to refer the dispute pending before it to arbitration and the said decision having become final, whether either party to the proceedings can thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice under Section 11 6 of the Act, is the question arising for companysideration in this case.
Aurangabad and the land gut number213 admeasuring 35R purchased in the name of defendant number3, under registered sale deed number1781 dated 25.4.2007 situated at Dahegaon Tq.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
12 out of the land Gut No.
and Dist.
Aurangabad executed by defendant number1 in favour of defendant number7 and the registered sale deed dated 30.7.2007 bearing registration number4318/2007 executed by defendant number2 in favour of defendant number1 in respect of land gut number97/2 to the extent of 20R. situated at Sharanapur Tq.
1, 2, 3 in Special Suit No.
Gangapur Dist.
121 admeasuring 1H. 14R. situated at village Tisgaon Tq.
17/2 admeasuring 5.30R. situated at Garkheda Tq.
and Dist.
Gangapur Dist.
Aurangabad and the land gut number167/2 purchased in the name of defendant number167/2 purchased in the name of defendant number5 admeasuring 8A. 22G, situated at Daheaon Tq.
6 purchased in the name of defendant number5 admeasuring 6A, situated at Rahimpur Tq.
The defendants number 1 to 7 may kindly be restrained permanently from alienating and creating the third party interest over the suit properties by issue of perpetual injunction against the defendants number1 to 7 their servants, their relatives, their agents or who so ever claims on their behalf permanently.
The parties have examined all their witnesses.
The applicant craves leave and liberty to file the companyy of the plaint as and when necessary.
Aurangabad and Gut No.
The dispute mainly pertains to the partnership business.
It may kindly be declared that the registered sale deeds dated 1.8.2007 executed by defendant number1 in favour of defendant number2 in respect of land gut number240 to the extent of 81R. situated at village Dahegaon Tq.
The respondents number1 to 3 state that the present application u s 11 of the said Arbitration Act filed by the applicants is numberhing but to either delay or overcome the proceedings in the suit pending between the parties.
Aurangabad and the land plot No.16 admeasuring 419 sq.
The High Court, as per the impugned order, ignored the objection and held as follows Sub section 3 of Section 8 of the Act does number preclude appointment of arbitration during companyrse of litigation pursuant to agreement.
