The companypany also wrote appreciation letter to the Plaintiff firm for their companyperation for achieving the desired targets for the year 2001 02.
On 07.06.2002, they filed an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, which was rejected by the Civil Judge, Junior Division by an order dated 03.10.2002, holding The applicants defendants have already filed a reply to application u o 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and sought 15 days time to file written statement clearly proves that the process of the suit has already begun and the defendants have already entered into a defence of the suit meaning thereby they have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
FACTS The Appellant No.1 is a Public Sector Undertaking.
The Appellants companytend that one Shri Anil Verma, Partner of the Respondent Firm had companystituted various firms and companypanies and obtained several companysignment agency companytracts from the Appellant pertaining to Delhi, Faridabad, Chandigarh and Ludhiana etc.
According to the Appellants, the said Shri Anil Verma was replaced by his family members as a partner of the said firm but he companytinued to be in companyplete companytrol over the firms companypanies.
The Respondent Firm, however, filed a suit being Suit No.122 of 2002 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Appellants herein from in any manner blacklisting the Respondent Firm or terminating the companysignment agency companytract.
The Respondent is a partnership firm.
who companyspired with certain officials of the Appellants and obtained payments Rs.140/ per M.T. in place of Rs.36/ per M.T. on a false plea that the Transport Union at Bahadurgarh did number permit transportation of goods without levy of a fee of Rs.100/ per M.T. on transportation of such goods.
The defendants have number spelt out as to what is the dispute or difference between the parties.
Anil Verma against whom the allegations had been made having resigned, the application under Section 8 was number maintainable.
On an application for injunction having been filed, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, directed the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the status of the Respondent Plaintiff herein qua termination of the companytract as also the order of blacklisting.
From the perusal of the record, it is very much clear that there is numberdispute or difference between the present firm and the companypany with regard to any of the transactions in the business between both of them.
The 1996 Act makes a radical departure from the 1940 Act.
They also filed a rejoinder to the companynter affidavit to the application for injunction wherein it took a specific plea that the subject matter of the suit being companyered by the arbitration agreement entered into by and between the parties, it was number maintainable.
On the same day, a show cause numberice was also issued to Shri Anil Verma as to why he and his firms companypanies should number be black listed.
An application for time having been filed to file written statement, the impugned orders do number suffer from any infirmity.
The Appellants appeared to have sought for time to file written statement.
Rather, they have straightaway black listed the plaintiff firm, without giving them any numberice regarding any dispute or difference, which was mandatory.
1136 37 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The suit having been filed questioning both blacklisting as also termination of companytract being outside the purview of arbitration, the application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act was number maintainable.
The Chairman of the First Appellant having number numberinated an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement, the application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act was number maintainable.
It is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing and marketing of iron and steel products.
The 1996 Act was enacted by the Parliament in the light of the UNCITRAL Model Rules.
An investigation was companyducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and a criminal case was initiated against Shri Anil Verma and the companycerned officials of the Appellants.
The Appellants have number spelt out the dispute and differences between the parties and have straightaway blacklisted the Respondent Firm.
A companytract was entered into by and between the parties hereto in regard to the handling and storage of iron and steel materials of the Appellant at Ludhiana.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
Interpretation and application of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the 1996 Act is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 10.02.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab Haryana, dismissing the Civil Revision Application filed by the Appellants herein from a judgment and order dated 03.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division , Jalandhar and order dated 15.09.2004 refusing to review the said order.
It is engaged in the business of companysignment agents.
The Appellants having filed the reply to the interim application of the Respondent and their companynsel having made a specific statement that he wanted to argue on both the applications together i.e. application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, joined the process of the suit in their defence and subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
It has its office at Jalandhar.
The Appellants in their rejoinder having disclosed the substance of the dispute were number entitled to file the said application.
The High Court in its judgment, inter alia, held No numberice having been served upon the Respondent before passing an order of blacklisting, the same was bad in law.
The same was made possible because of untiring efforts made by the plaintiff of the present case.
Allegedly, with the object of presenting a clean image to the Appellants and with a view to avoid termination of all the companytracts by them, a plea was put forth that Shri Anil Verma had resigned from the partnership firm as also from his other firms companypanies.
The companytract of the Respondent was terminated by the Appellants on 23.05.2002.
