Sandeep
Kumar & Ors Vs. Master Ritesh & Ors [2006] Insc 711 (31 October 2006)
S.B.
Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari
[Arising
out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19125-33 of 2003] S.B. SINHA, J :
Leave
granted.
Dev
Papers (P) Ltd., Meham, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956. Appellants herein as also Respondent Nos.2 to 7 were its shareholders.
One R.P. Gupta was representing the appellants whereas Satyadev Gupta was
representing the defendants-respondents in the Board of Directors. Disputes and
differences having arisen between the parties, a suit came to be filed by
Appellants. Admittedly, an arbitration agreement had been entered into by and
between Plaintiffs-Appellants and some of the Defendants. However, some of the
Defendants were not parties to the said agreement. In view of the existence of
the said arbitration agreement, an order was passed by the learned trial Judge
in terms of the Arbitration Act 1940. The matter came up to this Court on an
earlier occasion. Plaintiffs-Appellants herein made a representation before
this Court that they would amend the plaint by deleting the names of
Respondents who were parties to the arbitration agreement and continue with the
suit as against those who were not parties thereto. The said statements were
recorded in the order of this Court in the following terms :
"Mr.
K.N. Balgopal, learned counsel representing the respondents in these 9 SLPs,
states that the plaintiff(s) in each of the 9 suits which have been ordered,
shall confine his/their suit against the principal debtor in each case and
shall drop him from the array of defendants all such defendants other than
principal defendant. Prima facie, on such stance being adopted by the
petitioners' learned counsel, the grievance of the special leave petitioners, apparently,
vanishes. Learned counsel for the parties need and are granted time to check up
on this aspect of the matter." By an order dated 04.04.1997, the said
special leave petition was disposed of. The matter in regard to the stay of the
suit thereafter again came up for hearing. By reason of a judgment and order
dated 13.08.1999, it was, inter alia, held :
"The
legal proceedings in this case have been started after the agreement by persons
claiming under parties to the agreements. The plaintiffs in all the nine cases
are claiming under Rajender Parshad Gupta and the defendant is claiming through
Satyadev Gupta, both of whom are signatories/executants of the arbitration
agreement. Moreover, the plaintiffs in their plaints have admitted that they
were bound by the agreement dated 6.8.88, so that they cannot now contend that
they were not signatories of the agreement. The third contention is that the
proceeding must be with respect of the matter agreed to be referred to
arbitration. This condition has already been dealt within the preceding
paragraphs and need not be reproduced. Further, the application for stay has
been made by the defendant, who is party to the legal proceeding and was filed
before filing the written statement or taking any step in the proceedings. I
have already held that the applicant is ready and willing to do all things
necessary for the proper conduct of arbitration.
The
conditions set out in the authorities cited above, have been fulfilled and the
suits are liable to be stayed." In terms of the said findings the suit was
again directed to be stayed.
The
appeals preferred thereagainst by Appellants herein were also dismissed. The
High Court by reason of its impugned judgment passed in C.R. No. 3045 of 2000
upheld the said findings.
Mr.
K.N. Balgopal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants, would
submit that the courts below committed a serious error in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration the effect of deleting
the names of those defendants by amending the plaint.
According
to the learned counsel although there might exist an arbitration agreement
between Appellants and some of the Defendants, but in view of the fact that the
amendments had been carried out in the plaint the arbitration agreement could
not have been enforced as against Respondents who were not parties thereto.
Mr. Balbir
Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents, on the other
hand, would submit that the matter being governed by the provisions of Section
8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties could raise the
question of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in terms of section 16
thereof.
It
appears that the counter affidavit has been filed by one Shri Ramesh Kumar
Gupta. He had been representing a group in the suit. His name had been deleted
from the array of the parties by amending the plaint. In his counter affidavit
he does not state that he has any authority to represent other Respondents or
any authority to file a counter affidavit on their behalf.
Paragraph
7 of the plaint whereupon reliance has been placed reads as under:-
"7.
That the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 2 to 7 including defendant No. 5
are bound by the agreement dated 6.8.88 and that defendant No. 2 to 4 have repayed
Rs.26,51,000/- and have to repay Rs. 2.95 lac including amount of the plaintiff
for which the plaintiff is filing the suit against defendant No. 5 as well as
defendant No. 2 to 4. Defendant No.1 and defendants No. 6 to 7 have been joined
as proforma defendants." It may be true that Plaintiffs-Appellants had
been representing a group, but admittedly all the parties to the suit were not
parties to the arbitration agreement. If some of the Defendants were not
parties to the arbitration agreement, the question of invoking the arbitration
clause as against those Defendants would not arise. As noticed hereinbefore, in
the earlier round of litigation, Appellants categorically stated that the suit
would be confined only as against those who were not parties to the arbitration
agreement.
There
were three parties to the said arbitration agreement. Party No. 1 was
represented by
(1) Satya
Dev Gupta;
(2) Ramesh
Kumar Gupta; and
(3)
Jai Dev Gupta. Party No.2 was represented by
(1) Rajender
Parshad Gupta;
(2)
Sham Lal Gupta; and
(3) Sushil
Gupta. The third party to the said agreement was the company itself. If the
names of those who were in the Party No. 1 and Party No.2 in the said agreement
had been deleted from the array of Defendants-Appellants and the claims against
them have been given up, we fail to see as to how the arbitration agreement can
still be invoked under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or Section 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
For
the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is
set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Back