Latest News
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. V. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors.
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. V. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors.
Facts:
A suit was filed by the petitioner Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd against the respondent, Regency Mahavir Properties, and others looking for an assertion of the agreement dated 22nd July 2004 and 20th May 2006 was null ab initio. They needed the agreement to be announced as unlawful and not official over the petitioners. They contended that The aforementioned was allowed and the matter was referred for arbitration.
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. filed a writ petition before the Hon\'ble High Court of Bombay against the sam The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon\'ble High Court.
While the above occasion was occurring, Regency Mahavir Properties and Ors. recorded an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The previously mentioned was permitted and the issue alluded for the assertion.
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. recorded a writ appeal under the steady gaze of the Hon\'ble High Court of Bombay against the equivalent. The writ appeal was excused by the Hon\'ble High Court. In the current appeal before the Hon\'ble Supreme Court, Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. implores that all agreements ought to be dropped since their consent was acquired by means of misrepresentation, and thus the agreements are unlawful. Also, Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. contended that the procedures under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a procedure in rem and subsequently it falls under the Booz Allen Case.
Issue:-
Whether proceedings under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is proceeding in rem or proceeding in personam.
Whether the present dispute involves allegations of fraud?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in this case, noted that ‘a a person' mentioned in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not include a third person but is instead limited to a party to the written statement or any other instrument which may bind a third party. The aforementioned section determines when a written statement can be adjourned as void or voidable. It was contended by the court that it is clear by a section that an action under it is strictly an action inter-parties or by a person that has obtained a title by the parties and thus is in persona. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment Avital Post Studioz Limited v. H. S. B. C. in order to hold that merely because a case has criminal overtones, it doesn't make it non-arbitrable.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.
- Facts
- Issue
- Judgment
