Case title:
Shukal Singh vs. G.M., Jammu Co-Operative Wholesale Ltd.& Anr.
Date of Order:
02.06.2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Parties:
Petitioner: Shukal Singh
Respondent: G.M., Jammu Co-Operative Wholesale Ltd.& Anr.
SUBJECT
The petition is filed by the petitioner in order to submit a request in accordance with Sections 8 and 11 of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A dispute between the applicant and the respondents was the subject of the application, which asked for the appointment of an arbitrator.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989
- Section 70
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
- Section 35
- Section 33
- Section 38
- Section 40
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 11
- Section 9
- Section 16(1)(a)
- Section 8(2)
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, the petitioner rented a shop for a period of 20 years from respondent. The Petitioner stated that he was operating a fair price shop in the rented space called “Super Bazar Medical Fair Price Shop.”
- There were disagreements between the petitioner and the respondent over the payment of rent and the respondent’s interference with the operation of the shop.
- The petitioner submitted a leasing agreement with terms and conditions. Any issues relating to the Agreement should be submitted to an arbitrator, according to the arbitration clause in the agreement.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the application of the arbitration filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner argued that, the respondent allegedly tried to remove the petitioner from the shop and demanded a higher rent.
- It was also argued that the dispute between both the parties should be solved through arbitration process as per Clause 11 of the agreement.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf the respondent vehemently made several arguments against the arbitration application’s maintainability. It was also argued that, according to Section 70 of the J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989, the disagreement was within the Registrar of Cooperative Society's purview.
- They further argued that because the agreement was neither stamped nor registered, it was unenforceable. Furthermore, they argued that the petitioner lacked the legal authority to request arbitration because he was an employee of the cooperative society rather than a lessee.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court held that, in accordance with Clause 11 of the Agreement, arbitration should be used to settle the disagreement between the Cooperative Society and the applicant over a lease agreement.
- The court determines that the dispute is not covered by Section 70 of the Societies Act. It is determined that the objection brought up about the unregistered and unstamped agreement is valid. Therefore, rather than under Section 70 of the Societies Act, the matter should be submitted to arbitration based on the Agreement. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed.
CONCLUSION
The petitioner won their case, and the court concluded that their request for arbitration was legitimate. The court ruled that arbitration, as required by Clause 11 of the Agreement, should be used to resolve any differences between the Cooperative Society and the petitioner about the leasing agreement. The unregistered and unstamped agreement was a point of contention, and the court recognized the validity of that point of contention. As a result, the court decided that Section 70 of the Societies Act should not be used to resolve the dispute; instead, arbitration based on the Agreement should be used. The petitioner's request for arbitration was therefore approved.
