{"id":255673,"date":"2010-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-10T19:48:42","modified_gmt":"2016-09-10T14:18:42","slug":"dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nIAAP\/6\/2010\t 1\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nPETN.\nUNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 6 of 2010\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\t                  YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?    YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?       \n\t\t\t                   NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?                                NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be  circulated to the civil judge ?                      \n\t\t\t              NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDIC\n- NCC (JV) - A JOINT VENTURE OF M\/S DAELIM INDUSTRIAL CO -\nPetitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nM\nSAHAI & ASSOCIATES PVT LTD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKG SUKHWANI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SUDHAKAR B JOSHI for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
Present
\n\tpetition has been preferred by the petitioner\n<\/p>\n
\t – DIC-NCC (JV), a Joint Venture of M\/s.Daelim
\n\tIndustrial Co.Ltd. And Nagarjuna Construction Co.Ltd., having its
\n\toffice at Ahmedabad under sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
\n\tAct<\/a>, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between
\n\tthe parties arising out of the Work Order dtd.22\/6\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\t that by  Work Order dtd.2\/2\/2006 Labour Rate Contract
\n\tfor ROB’s Grade Separator and Slab\/Box Culverts, including pile
\n\tfoundation for rehabilitation and upgrading of Garamore   Gagodhar
\n\tSection of NH-8A and NH-15 from Km.254+000 to Km.308+000 and from
\n\tKm.281+300 to Km.245+000 (Pkg-IV). It is the case on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t that work in question was executed in Rajkot District
\n\tand the petitioner
\n\t had issued work order to the respondent in Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\t that the disputes arose between the parties,  and the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t was constrained to terminate the contract vide
\n\tletter\/communication dtd.20\/11\/2006.  It is the case on behalf of
\n\tthe petitioner
\n\t that  after termination of the contract final bill
\n\tand claims were submitted by the respondent vide letter
\n\tdtd.18\/1\/2007 which was replied by the petitioner
\n\t on 23\/1\/2007. It is the case on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t that  along with the  subsequent letter
\n\tdtd.23\/4\/2007, details of measurement, payment made, reconciliation
\n\tof materials issued, etc were intimated to the respondent and the
\n\trespondent was informed that an amount of Rs.12,61,115=19 ps. was
\n\trequired to be paid to the petitioner
\n\t and accordingly notice was also served on 17\/9\/2007
\n\tthorough Advocate Mr.S.T. Zumkawala. It is submitted on behalf of
\n\tthe petitioner
\n\t that since the requirements of the aforesaid notice
\n\twere not complied with, by further notice dtd.16\/1\/2009 once again
\n\tthe respondent was given chance and opportunity to clear outstanding
\n\tamount of Rs.12,61,115=19 ps. It is submitted that notice
\n\tdtd.16\/1\/2009 was replied by advocate Mr.Vinod B. Mathur &
\n\tCompany  on 3\/3\/2009. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\t that  thereafter  by notice dtd.27\/4\/2009 the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t invoked arbitration clause and requested the
\n\trespondent to agree to one name to appoint as arbitrator to resolve
\n\tthe dispute. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\t that  since the respondent had not agreed to any name
\n\t suggested in the notice dtd.27\/4\/2009, the petitioner
\n\t once again called upon the  respondent by  notice
\n\tdtd.31\/7\/2009 to agree with the name of Hon’ble Mr.Justice
\n\tM.S.Parikh, Former Judge of the Gujarat High Court and Chairman,
\n\tState Consumer Commission, as Sole Arbitrator within a period of 30
\n\tdays from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t  shall be compelled to approach this Court as per the
\n\tprovisions of sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>, 1996.
\n\tIt is the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\t that  though the said notice dtd.31\/7\/2009 has been
\n\tserved upon the respondent, the same has not been replied by the
\n\trespondent and therefore, the petitioner
\n\t has approached this Court to appoint sole arbitrator
\n\tto resolve the disputes between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.K.G.\n<\/p>\n
\tSukhwani, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner  has
\n\tsubmitted that there is a dispute between the parties arising out of
\n\tthe Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 and therefore, as per
\n\tclause 30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005, the dispute
\n\tis required to be referred for adjudication to a sole arbitrator.
\n\tTherefore, it is requested to appoint sole arbitrator as the
\n\trespondent has failed to agree with the appointment of the sole
\n\tarbitration for adjudication of the disputes between the parties
\n\tunder the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tresponse to the notice issued by this Court, Mr.Sudhakar Joshi,
\n\tlearned
\n\tadvocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Preliminary
\n\tobjection has been raised on behalf of
\n\tthe respondent with respect to maintainability of the present
\n\tpetition before this High Court. It is submitted that as per clause
\n\t30 of the Work Order
\n\t\/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 only the Courts in the City of Hyderabad
\n\tshall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other
\n\tclaims arising out of or touching upon the matters contained in the
\n\tWork Order, the Gujarat High Court has no jurisdiction  to entertain
\n\tany  suit or other claims arising out of or touching upon the
\n\tmatters contained in the said Work Order, therefore, Gujarat High
\n\tCourt  would not have jurisdiction to entertain present petition
\n\tand to appoint  sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes
\n\tbetween the parties arising out of the Work Order. Mr.Joshi, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has
\n\theavily relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
\n\tthe case of TPR Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Kingsbury Personal Care
\n\tPvt. Ltd., reported in 2010 (1) Arbitration Law Report in
\n\tsupport of his above submission.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted by Mr.Joshi, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the respondent that the parties have
\n\tagreed and   they have subjected themselves to jurisdiction of the
\n\tCourts at Hyderabad only and therefore,  because of the said
\n\tconscious decision of the parties to exclude the jurisdiction of
\n\tother Courts including the Court in Gujarat, only the Chief Justice
\n\tof Andhra Pradesh High Court or his designate alone would have been
\n\tapproached by the petitioner  for appointment of
\n\tarbitrator. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision, Andhra
\n\tPradesh High Court dealing with the similar set of facts where the
\n\tparties mutually and consciously agreed that in case of dispute at
\n\tany level, it shall be solved within the jurisdiction of Mumbai by
\n\tarbitration  only, when a petition for appointment of arbitrator was
\n\tsubmitted before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, considering two
\n\tdecisions of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of ABC Laminart
\n\tPvt.Ltd.  V\/s. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in AIR 1989 SC
\n\t1239 and in the case of Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs.
\n\tChand Mal Baradia, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2161, Andhra
\n\tPradesh High Court  has held that  application to appoint sole
\n\tarbitrator under sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>,
\n\t1996 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court  is not maintainable and
\n\tonly the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and\/or his designate
\n\talone would have jurisdiction. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss
\n\tthe present petition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.K.G.\n<\/p>\n
\tSukhwani, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
\n\t  has submitted that as such no cause of action has
\n\tarisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Hyderabad and\/or even
\n\tAndhra Pradesh. It is submitted that admittedly the Work Order was
\n\tissued in Gujarat and the Work in question was executed in Rajkot
\n\tDistrict, Gujarat State. It is further submitted that  even the
\n\trespondent is having its registered office  at Delhi and the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t is having his registered office at Ahmedabad. It is
\n\tsubmitted that as no cause of action at all has been arisen within
\n\tthe territorial jurisdiction of Hyderabad or Andhra Pradesh, even by
\n\tconsent or agreement,  party cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court
\n\twhich is not possessed by it. It is submitted that only in a case
\n\twhere more than one Courts have jurisdiction and by agreement
\n\tparties have agreed to confer jurisdiction with respect to one of
\n\tthe Court having jurisdiction, such a contract\/agreement is valid
\n\tand only that Court would have jurisdiction which otherwise would
\n\thave jurisdiction as per sec.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Sukhwani,
\n\tlearned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner  has
\n\theavily relied upon the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Hakam Singh
\n\tV\/s. M\/s. Gammon (India) Ltd.,  reported in AIR 1971 SC 740.
\n\t It is submitted by Mr.Sukhwani, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
\n\tthe
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Hakam  Singh
\n\t(supra), has held that it is no open to the parties to confer by
\n\tagreement jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess  under
\n\tthe Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore,  it is submitted that, that
\n\t part of clause-30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 which
\n\tprovides that only Hyderabad Court would have jurisdiction to
\n\tadjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the
\n\tcontract, is void and as the cause of action has arisen within the
\n\tterritorial jurisdiction of Gujarat,  only Gujarat High Court has
\n\tjurisdiction to refer the parties to the arbitration and to appoint
\n\tarbitrator under sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>,
\n\t1996. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that
\n\tthere are disputes between the parties arising out of Work Order \/
\n\tAgreement dtd.22\/6\/2005. Relevant Clause-30 reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 Clause\n<\/p>\n
-30:- Dispute Settlement on Arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
All
\ndifferences and disputes arising during the performance of above said
\nwork shall as far as possible be settled with mutual discussions
\namongst us only. If, however, such differences and disputes still
\npersist, the same shall be referred for necessary adjudication to a
\nsole Arbitrator mutually agreed upon in terms of Arbitration and
\nConciliation Act<\/a>, 1996 and the award given by the said Sole
\nArbitration shall be final and binding  on both the parties to the
\nagreement made between us. Venue of the same will be at Hyderabad.
\nThe Courts in the City of Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction
\nto entertain any suits or other claims arising out of or touching
\nupon the matters contained  in this work order.\n<\/p>\n
Relying
\n\t upon Clause-30, which provides that venue of the arbitration shall
\n\tbe at Hyderabad  and the Courts in the City of Hyderabad
\n\tshall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any suits or other
\n\tclaims arising out of or touching upon the matters contained  in the
\n\tsaid work order, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the
\n\trespondent that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
\n\tpresent petition under sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
\n\tAct<\/a>, 1996 and to appoint arbitrator  and that the petitioner
\n\t has to approach the Chief Justice of the Andhra
\n\tPradesh High Court or his designate for appointment of arbitrator to
\n\tadjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the
\n\tWork Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
While
\n\tdealing with the jurisdiction of the Courts at Hyderabad as
\n\tconferred by the parties, as contained in Clause-30 of the Work
\n\tOrder \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005, first of all it is required  to be
\n\tconsidered whether any cause of action or even part of cause of
\n\taction has arisen within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court?  It is
\n\tto be noted and it  is an admitted position that the Work Order
\n\tdtd.22\/6\/2005 has been issued by the petitioner
\n\t to the respondent in Gujarat. It is also an admitted
\n\tposition that the Work Order in question was executed in Rajkot
\n\tDistrict, Gujarat State. It is also an admitted position that the
\n\tregistered office of the petitioner
\n\t Company is situated at Ahmedabad. It is also an
\n\tadmitted position that the registered office of the respondent
\n\tCompany is at Delhi. Therefore, as such no cause of action has
\n\tarisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court.  It
\n\tis sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent that as the
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t is the Joint Venture of one Nagarjuna Construction
\n\tCo. Ltd., whose registered office is situated at Hyderabad,
\n\tHyderabad  Court would have jurisdiction, which cannot be accepted.
\n\tMerely because the petitioner
\n\t is Joint Venture of one Nagarjuna Construction Co.
\n\tLtd., whose registered office is situated at Hyderabad, it cannot be
\n\tsaid that Hyderabad Court would have jurisdiction to entertain  the
\n\tsuit or other claims arising out of or touching upon the matters
\n\tcontained  in the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 executed
\n\tbetween the petitioner
\n\t and the respondent. By no stretch of imagination
\n\tHyderabad Court would have any jurisdiction as provided under sec.20
\n\tof the Code of Civil Procedure   to entertain any suit or  other
\n\tclaims arising out of or touching upon the matters contained  in the
\n\tWork Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 executed between the petitioner
\n\t and the respondent. No cause of action or even part
\n\tcause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of
\n\tthe Court of City of Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of the above facts and the finding, the objection on behalf of
\n\tthe respondent is required to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the respondent that  as the parties have
\n\tconsciously agreed to resolve their disputes only by the Court in
\n\tthe City of Hyderabad, only the Court in the City of Hyderabad would
\n\thave exclusive jurisdiction, which cannot be accepted. As observed
\n\tand held by the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Hakam Singh
\n\t(supra) it is not open to the parties to confer by agreement
\n\tjurisdiction on a Court which does not possess under the Code of
\n\tCivil Procedure. It is further observed by the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  that where two or more Courts
\n\tunder the Code of Civil Procedure   have jurisdiction to try a suit
\n\tor proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the disputes
\n\tbetween them shall be tried in one of such courts, is not contrary
\n\tto public policy and does not contravene section 28<\/a> of the Contract
\n\tAct. In the present case, as stated above,  the Courts in Hyderabad
\n\thave no jurisdiction to entertain any suit  or other claims arising
\n\tout of or touching upon the matters contained  in the Work Order \/
\n\tAgreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 executed between the petitioner
\n\t and the respondent, as no cause of action or even
\n\tpart of cause of action  has arisen  within the territorial
\n\tjurisdiction of Courts at Hyderabad. Therefore, as observed and held
\n\tby the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Hakam Singh
\n\t(supra), Clause-30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005,
\n\twhich provides that Courts in the City of Hyderabad shall have
\n\texclusive jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other claim arising
\n\tout of or touching upon the matters contained in the Work Order \/
\n\tAgreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 is void and hit by sec.28 of the Contract
\n\tAct<\/a>. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned advocate
\n\tappearing on behalf of the respondent with respect to
\n\tmaintainability  of the present petition before this High Court
\n\trelying upon clause-30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005
\n\tis hereby overruled and considering the fact that the  cause of
\n\taction has arisen within Rajkot and Ahmedabad i.e. within  the
\n\tterritorial jurisdiction of State of Gujarat, High Court of Gujarat
\n\t has jurisdiction and therefore, the present petition before this
\n\tCourt,  for appointment of arbitrator under sec.11 of the
\n\tArbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes
\n\tbetween the parties, is maintainable and in view of the arbitration
\n\tClause-30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005, the disputes
\n\tbetween the parties are required to be referred to arbitration and
\n\tas there is no consensus between the parties with respect to
\n\tappointment of arbitrator, arbitrator is appointed by this Court,
\n\thowever, venue of the arbitration shall be at Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
Now,
\n\tso far as  the reliance placed upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh
\n\tin the case of TPR Marketing Pvt.Ltd. (supra) is concerned, first of
\n\tall it is to be noted that there was no issue\/dispute before the
\n\tAndhra Pradesh  whether the Bombay High Court would have any
\n\tjurisdiction  or not and\/or there was no issue\/dispute with respect
\n\tto cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay
\n\tHigh Court. On the contrary, considering the facts of the case
\n\tbefore the Andhra Pradesh High Curt, it appears that the cause of
\n\taction\/part cause of action has arisen within the limits of State of
\n\tAndhra Pradesh as well as Mumbai also and therefore, it was found
\n\tthat both the courts would have jurisdiction concerning the subject
\n\tmatter of the disputes between the parties and considering the above
\n\tfacts and the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of ABC Laminart
\n\tPvt.Ltd. (supra)  and  Shree Shubhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
\n\tAndhra Pradesh High Court has held that only Mumbai Court would have
\n\tjurisdiction and therefore, the application to appoint arbitrator
\n\tbefore the Andhra Pradesh High Court was held to be not
\n\tmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
Considering
\n\tclause-30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 and the fact
\n\tthat the registered office of the petitioner
\n\t is at Ahmedabad and even the registered office of the
\n\trespondent is at New Delhi and the respondent  is carrying its
\n\tbusiness at New Delhi, it was suggested by the Court to mutually
\n\tagree to fix the venue of arbitration at Ahmedabad to avoid wastage
\n\tof time and expenditure, however, Mr.Joshi, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the respondent  has
\n\tnot agreed to the same and therefore, as per Clause-30  of the Work
\n\tOrder \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005, the venue of the arbitration shall
\n\tbe at Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition
\n\tsucceeds and Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.S. Parikh, Retired Judge of the
\n\tGujarat High Court,  residing at 12, Niyojannagar Co-operative
\n\tHousing Society, Opp. Manekbaug Hall, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380 015,
\n\tis hereby appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the
\n\tdisputes between the parties arising out of the Work Order \/
\n\tAgreement dtd.22\/6\/2005 executed between parties.  However, as
\n\tstated above, the venue of the arbitration shall be at Hyderabad as
\n\tper clause-30 of the Work Order \/ Agreement dtd.22\/6\/2005. It is
\n\thoped that the learned sole arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes
\n\tbetween the parties at the earliest so as to achieve the object and
\n\tpurpose of Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>, 1996. The learned sole
\n\tarbitrator to declare the Award preferably within a period of 15
\n\t(fifteen) months from the date of this judgement and order. All
\n\tconcerned are directed to cooperate the learned sole arbitrator  in
\n\tadjudicating the disputes between the parties and awarding the award
\n\tby the learned sole arbitrator within the time stated hereinabove.
\n\tPresent petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In
\n\tthe facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
\n\tto costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
rafik<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print IAAP\/6\/2010 1\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 6 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDic vs M on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-10T14:18:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T14:18:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2993,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T14:18:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-10T14:18:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T14:18:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010"},"wordCount":2993,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010","name":"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T14:18:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dic-vs-m-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dic vs M on 10 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}