DEB KUMAR BASU Vs. M/S. AMARPALI BARTER (P) LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-46
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 08,2014

Deb Kumar Basu Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Amarpali Barter (P) Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated 5-7- 2013 as corrected by the order dated 15-7-2013 passed in Title Suit No. 13652 of 2012 (Deb Kumar Basu and Ors. vs- Smt. Anita Paul and Ors. ) by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division ), 2nd Court , Alipore, South 24- Parganas whereby an application under Section 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) filed by opposite party No. 1/defendant No. 4 was allowed and Title Suit No. 13652 of 2012 was stayed subject to the outcome of the arbitration proceeding .
(2.) A brief background leading to the presentation of this revisional application is that petitioners as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 13652 of 2012 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas praying for declaration, partition and consequential relief. They also filed an application for temporary injunction and obtained an ad interim order of injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1/defefendant No. 4 from disturbing their peaceful possession or from changing the nature and character in respect of the suit property. The said interim order was extended from time to time. The opposite party No. 1 entered appearance. He submitted an application under Section 5 and 8 of the Act praying for stay of further proceeding of the suit. On hearing the parties the order impugned was passed giving rise to this revisional application.
(3.) Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee , learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the application should not have been entertained by the learned Court below as the provisions laid down in Section 8 (2) of the act was not complied with. The application was not accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof. It was accompanied with a photocopy of the agreement. The suit was for partition as well as for declaration. The bifurcation of causes of action for invoking application of Section 8 of the act is not permissible.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.