Managing Director - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and anr. Vs. Nirmala Hirjibhai Maheshwari and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he.....1. the present application is filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 in the main matter. the prayer sought for in this application is as under:-"7. a. this application under section 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, be allowed and the disputes raised in the petition be referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in dealership agreement executed by this applicant with the petitioner."2. learned advocate mr.pratik barot for the original petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection if the matter is referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in the dealership agreement between the parties.3. that being so, this application deserves to be allowed.4. rule. learned advocate mr.pratik barot waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-original petitioner.5. for the contents of the application and the submission made by learned advocate ms.minoo a.shah for the applicants, the application is allowed. the dispute ventilated in the petition is referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in the dealership agreement between the parties. rule is made absolute. no costs.

Judgment:

1. The present application is filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the main matter. The prayer sought for in this application is as under:-

"7. A. This Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, be allowed and the disputes raised in the petition be referred to Arbitration in accordance with Arbitration clause in Dealership Agreement executed by this Applicant with the Petitioner."

2. Learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for the original petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection if the matter is referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in the dealership agreement between the parties.

3. That being so, this application deserves to be allowed.

4. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Barot waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-original petitioner.

5. For the contents of the application and the submission made by learned Advocate Ms.Minoo A.Shah for the applicants, the application is allowed. The dispute ventilated in the petition is referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in the dealership agreement between the parties. Rule is made absolute. No costs.