Case: Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Manju Vs Raghunandan Sharma @ Baburam and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

CounselFor the Appellant: P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., K.N. Tripathy, R.M. Patnaik, H.P. Sahu and V.K. Sidharthan, Advs and For the Respondents: K.V. Vijwanthan, Sr. Adv., Neha, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Vikas Mehta, Jayanat K. Mehta and Amit Bhandari, Advs.
JudgesR.V. Raveendran and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
IssueArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 7, 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 8, 8(1), 8(3), 11, 11(6), 14, 14(1), 15 and 15(2); Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 7, Rule 11
Citation2010 (2) ALT 39 (SC), 2010 (10) AWC 1969 (SC), JT 2010 (2) SC 155, 2010 (3) MahLJ 1 (SC), (2010) 3 MLJ 507 (SC), 2010 (1) SCALE 688, (2010) 2 SCC 486
Judgement DateTuesday January 05, 2010
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Order:

R.V. Raveendran, J.

  1. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel.

  2. The first respondent and appellant are brothers. The first respondent filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 100 of 2006) against the appellant alleging that their father Durganarayan Sharma died on 20.10.2005 leaving a will dated 21.10.2003 bequeathing portions of property bearing No. B-133, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (for short the suit premises) to him, and that the appellant who was in possession of the said portions, was liable to deliver possession thereof to the first respondent on the basis of the said will. The Executors of the said will were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3 herein).

  3. The appellant herein, in turn filed a Civil Suit No. 53 of 2007 for partition and separate possession of his one-sixth share in the ancestral properties. He also sought a declaration that the will dated 21.10.2003 propounded by the first respondent was fabricated, null and void. In the said partition suit, first respondent and his son were impleaded as defendants 1 and 6; appellant's another brother and three sisters were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5; the son of another brother who had been given away in adoption was impleaded as defendant No. 7; and the executors under the will were impleaded as defendants 8 and 9.

  4. The two suits were consolidated for trial. Respondents 2 and 3 claiming to be the executors of the will of Durganarayan Sharma filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' for short) in the said suits alleging that the deceased Durganarayan Sharma had made a declaration on 15.10.2005, shortly before his death, that if there was any dispute in connection with the will, the same should be decided by Shri U.N. Bhandari, Advocate; that the parties to the two suits being children and grandchildren of Durganarayan Sharma were bound by the said declaration and the disputes which were the subject matter of the two suits should therefore be decided by arbitration. The trial court heard the said application and by order dated 19.9.12007, held that in view of the said provision for resolution of disputes by arbitration, its jurisdiction was barred by the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the trial court dismissed both the suits, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short).

  5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2007, the appellant herein filed an appeal (SB Civil Appeal No. 664 of 2007) contending that there was no agreement for arbitration and that there was no ground for dismissal of his suit and a Division Bench of the High Court, while issuing notice to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted, stayed the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the trial court, by order dated 14.11.2007.

  6. The first respondent accepted the decision of the trial court and filed a claim statement on 20.10.2007 before Shri U.N. Bhandari, the sole Arbitrator named in the declarations of his father, the reliefs earlier sought by him in Civil Suit No. 100/2006. The said U.N. Bhandari issued notices to the appellant and other...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
10 practice notes
8 cases
2 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT