Delhi Printing & Publishing Co. ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1993 Latest Caselaw 108 Del

ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-3-1990 passed by Shr. A. S. Dateer, Sub Judge, Delhi whereby he has framed the following issue:

"1. Whether any bona fide dispute exists between the parties? If so, to what effect?"

Against the framing of such an issue, the revision petition has been filed.

2. Mr. Thadani, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and particularly the learned trial Court frame the issue in such a way.

3. I am afraid I am not able to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nothing has been shown by Mr. Thadani and in fact no pleadings have been shown to me to enable the Court to appreciate that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties.

4. From the impugned order I find that there is an arbitration Clause No. 26 in the Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the DESU and the present dispute is covered under that clause. According to agreed arbitration clause No. 26, the matter can be referred to the arbitrator.

5. However, for referring the matter to the arbitrator there should be dispute between the parties. Mr. Thadani, however, states that the learned trial Court could not frame the issue whether any bona fide dispute exists between the parties? Much emphasis has been laid down by him on the word "bona fide". According to him, the learned trial Court cannot frame the issue in this way, as according to him, the matter can be referred to if there is a dispute and the dispute need not be bona fide.

6. Such a contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. In order to determine whether the matter is referable to arbitrator, the Court has prima facie to come to a conclusion that there does exist a dispute and that the same is not frivolous. Frivolous disputes obviously cannot be referred to arbitrator. Therefore, in that context, if the learned trial Court has couched the issue in the fashion as has been done in the present case whether any bona fide dispute exists between the parties, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error.

7. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order.

Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. Petition dismissed.