Source: http://www.swamilawyer.com/2016/10/a-ayyasamy-vs-paramasivam-ors-october.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:59:12+00:00

Document:
disputes by means of arbitration.
before the High Court repeating his contention that judgment in N.
Judge of this Court under Section 11 of the Act whereas judgment in N.
Court, which is binding on the High Court.
fraud taken in the suit filed by the respondents.
appellant. These five brothers are the partners. Their father A.
effect that the seized money of Rs.45 lakhs belonged to 'Hotel Arunagiri'.
for the reasons stated hereinabove.
The two courts below have preferred to adopt the dicta laid down in N.
correct in following the judgment in N. Radhakrishnan in the instant case.
awards. These provisions are Section 34 and Section 48 of the Act.
following discussion by this Court in Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. v.
amenable to be assailed within the ambit of Section 34 of the Act.
that such proceedings are not valid in law.
regard to the existence of an arbitration agreement between them?
arbitrability or non-arbitrability of the disputes.
inasmuch as there is a specific arbitration clause in the partnership deed.
Court where disputes would be considered as non-arbitrable.
by the Court on a decision of the Chancery Division in Russell v.
account books, and manipulation of the finances of the partnership firm.
fraud were of serious nature.
the other judgments in the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G.
“21. This judgment was not even brought to the note of the Court in N.
to the notice by this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the judgment in N.
2) whether the disputes are covered by the arbitration agreement?
3) whether the parties have referred the disputes to arbitration?
tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country.
for settlement of such disputes.
eviction or decide the disputes.
and there exist conflicting decisions of the Apex Court on this issue.
lines of judgments on the issue of whether an issue of fraud is arbitrable.
Engineers, 2010 1 SCC 72 held that an issue of 28 fraud is not arbitrable.
of the Supreme Court in Abdul Qadir v. Madhav Prabhakar, AIR 1962 SC 406.
Ravishankar, 2011 (6) Kar LJ 417). The Supreme Court in Meguin GMBH v.
Court in its judgment in Swiss Timing Ltd v. Organising Committee, Arb.
cases where there are allegations of serious fraud and fraud simplicitor.
been exercised by another Hon'ble Judge as a delegate of the Chief Justice.
the proposition of law laid down in N.Radhakrishnan.
arbitration clause or the validity of the arbitration clause itself.
Section 8 should be rejected.
proved by the respondents which is again a matter of accounts.
shall fix her own fee.
contained in His Lordship’s judgment while adding some of my own.
considerable degree of uncertainty in the law of arbitration in India.
arbitrability. Intrinsic legislative material is in fact to the contrary.
the agreement entered into between them to refer disputes to arbitration.
being performed” do not find place in Section 8.
parties is affected by fraud or undue influence.
consequence must arise under the law for the time being in force.
expressly or by necessary implication. In Booz-Allen and Hamilton Inc. v.
conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.
beneficiaries arising out of a trust deed and the Trust Act.
would not be recognised by a court of law.
Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, and Rosedale Developers Pvt.
any other law for the time being in force.
would not then be capable of resolution by arbitration.
instituted before the civil court for declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
a decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere vs.
made a radical departure from the position under the erstwhile enactment.
to strengthen the efficacy of arbitration.
Bench of two learned judges in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
the dealership agreement and sales of petroleum products were suspended.
rejected the application and the High Court in revision affirmed the view.
tampering with the seals would be a criminal offence under the 1985 Act.
and cannot be decided by an arbitrator…..
of the jurisdiction conferred by the arbitration agreement.
Raju, Pink City and in Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd. v.
law should yield to the special law - generalia specialibus non derogant.
legislative mandate of compelling parties to seek recourse to arbitration.
seeking a convenient ruse to avoid arbitration to raise a defence of fraud.
First and foremost, it is necessary to emphasise that the judgment in N.
establish the claims relating to fraud and criminal misappropriation”.
determining whether the defence is merely a pretext to avoid arbitration.
wrongdoing that the exception to arbitrability carved out in N.
such disputes from the ambit and purview of a claim in arbitration.
the validity of a contract, it would be comparatively simple to say so. ..
arbitration clause is the presumption in favour of one-stop arbitration.
contracting parties to resolve their disputes through a private tribunal.
The intent of the parties is expressed in the terms of their agreement.
understanding a sense of business efficacy.
in proceedings before a national jurisdiction”.
they have entered or purported to enter to be decided by the same tribunal.
that it as procured by fraud, bribery, misrepresentation or anything else.
In my opinion it therefore applies to the present dispute”.
Inc. v. Cardegna, followed its earlier decisions in Prima Paint Corp.
v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., and in Southland Corporation v.
be considered by an arbitrator, not a court”.
again a recognition of the same principle.
uncontroversial also as a matter of European law”.
Section 107(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
frequently made, although much less frequently proven”.
substantive validity of an arbitration clause included in the contract.
commercial understandings grounded in the faith in arbitration.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.