Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to refer the disputes to arbitration is issued by a party, the Court is not barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act for interim measures. The Court added that it is not constrained to refer the parties to arbitration and convert the proceedings under Section 9 into an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act, to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni reiterated that when an application under Section 9 has already been taken up for consideration, the question of examining whether the remedy under Section 17 is efficacious or not would not arise. A Development Agreement was executed between the petitioner- Relcon Infroprojects Ltd., and the respondent no. 1 Cooperative Housing Society- Ridhi Sidhi Sadan. The petitioner was appointed as a developer for carrying out the redevelopment of the building of the Society. Subsequently, the petitioner and the Society entered into a Supplemental Development Agreement, making modifications to the Development Agreement, which was executed by the majority members of the Society. Consequently, the petitioner took steps to proceed with the redevelopment work. After the respondent no. 2 to 4, who are the members of the Society, and respondent no. 6, failed to cooperate in the redevelopment work and refused to vacate their flats, the petitioner filed an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the A&C Act before the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction to the parties to handover the possession of their respective flats. The petitioner Relcon Infroprojects submitted before the High Court that the Development Agreement and the Supplementary Development Agreement was executed between the petitioner, the Society and its majority members with respect to the redevelopment work of the premises of the Society. The petitioner averred that the said Supplementary Agreement being executed by the majority members of the Society, the respondent members of the Society could not oppose the redevelopment work on the ground that they were aggrieved by the terms of the said Supplemental Development Agreement. The petitioner added that the obstruction made to the redevelopment work by the respondent members was prejudicial to the interests of other members of the Society who had already vacated their respective flats and were willing to cooperate with the redevelopment work. Hence, the petitioner submitted that since substantial amounts were spent by the petitioner to commence the redevelopment work, the stalling of the project by the respondent members would adversely affect the petitioner and the majority members of the Society. The respondent no. 2 submitted before the High Court that he had already invoked the arbitration clause by issuing notice to the petitioner and the Society, and since no reply was received to the said notice, the respondent no. 2 had filed an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act before the High Court for appointment of an arbitral tribunal. Thus, the respondent no. 2 contended that the petitioner and the Society had no real intention to commence arbitration and hence, a relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act ought not to be granted. The respondent no. 2 prayed that appropriate orders be passed on the Section 11 application filed by him, and that the proceedings under Section 9 be converted into an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act, to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. Section 9 (3) of the A&C Act provides that once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application for interim measures under Section 9(1), unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 efficacious. The Court noted that after the petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act was filed before the High Court and a notice on the petition was served on the respondent members, the respondent member had issued the notice invoking the arbitration clause. Holding that it is a settled law that minority members cannot obstruct the will and the decision of the majority members of the Society, the Court rejected the contention of the respondent members that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act to refer the disputes to arbitration was issued by the respondent member, the High Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act and that the Court must refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration. "The insistence on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 4 is that merely because a notice under section 21 of the Act to refer the disputes to arbitral tribunal was issued, the sequel to it would be that the Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under...

Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers