VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA @ MANJU versus RAGHUNANDAN SHARMA @ BABURAM & ORS.

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA @ MANJU versus RAGHUNANDAN SHARMA @ BABURAM & ORS.

There is no arbitration agreement between the parties as defined under section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; a unilateral declaration by a father, or a provision in his will, cannot constitute an arbitration agreement among his children or legatees. Accordingly, the appointment of an arbitrator under sections 11 and 15(2) was not justified.

Parties
Appellant: Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Manju; Respondents: Raghunandan Sharma @ Baburam & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Designate of Chief Justice Appointing Arbitrator
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement, Appointment of Arbitrator, Will and Testament, Code of Civil Procedure Order 7 Rule 11
Arbitration Arbitration Agreement Appointment of Arbitrator Will and Testament Code of Civil Procedure Order 7 Rule 11

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Manju

Appellant

Raghunandan Sharma @ Baburam & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Designate of Chief Justice Appointing Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mere pendency of an application or appeal concerning arbitration bars appointment of an arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  2. 2 Whether a declaration by a father or provision in a will constitutes an arbitration agreement under section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arbitration agreement between the parties as defined under section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; a unilateral declaration by a father, or a provision in his will, cannot constitute an arbitration agreement among his children or legatees. Accordingly, the appointment of an arbitrator under sections 11 and 15(2) was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of Designate of Chief Justice appointing an Arbitrator is set aside