Supreme Court Directs Arbitration in Property Dispute: Clarifies Scope of Section 8 of Arbitration Act

The case of M/s Avinash Hitech City 2 Society & Ors. v. Boddu Manikya Malini & Anr. revolved around a dispute related to lease rent distribution and the applicability of arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the contract.

The Court ultimately ruled that the dispute should be referred to arbitration, setting aside the decisions of the High Court and the District Judge. The judgment clarifies the applicability of arbitration clauses in property-related disputes and reinforces the importance of honoring contractual arbitration agreements.

Background and Key Issues

The dispute arose concerning a large-scale development project in Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The key legal issues included:

• Whether the arbitration clause in the Addendum to the Supplementary Development Agreement was applicable.
• Whether the dispute related to the lease rent distribution should be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• Whether the High Court correctly upheld the District Judge’s decision refusing arbitration.

Arguments of the Petitioner (M/s Avinash Hitech City 2 Society & Ors.)

• The dispute over lease rent distribution arises out of the Development Agreement, Supplementary Development Agreement, and the Addendum, which explicitly provides for arbitration under Clause 19.
• The High Court and the District Judge failed to appreciate the contractual obligation of arbitration and erroneously rejected the Section 8 application.
• The arbitration clause clearly applies to disputes between owners, societies, and developers, covering the present dispute.
• The lease rent was collected in accordance with the agreement, and any dispute regarding its distribution must be settled through arbitration.

Arguments of the Respondents (Boddu Manikya Malini & Anr.)

• The dispute involves allegations of mismanagement and lack of transparency, which go beyond the scope of arbitration.
• The relief sought, including the splitting of the society into two separate societies, could not be adjudicated by an arbitrator.
• The High Court correctly interpreted Clause 19 and found that arbitration was not applicable to the present dispute.
• The respondents had lost faith in the existing society and sought relief under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which was beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

1. Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements

“The arbitration clause in the Addendum expressly covers disputes arising out of, in connection with, or relating to the agreement. The lease rent dispute clearly falls within this scope.”

The Court held that the parties had a binding arbitration agreement and that the dispute fell within its purview.

2. High Court’s Misinterpretation of Clause 19

“The High Court erred in holding that the dispute was beyond the scope of arbitration. The claim regarding rent sharing arises directly from contractual obligations and is covered by the arbitration clause.”

The Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly limited the scope of arbitration and failed to recognize the contractual mandate.

3. Importance of Arbitration Under Section 8

“Under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts must refer disputes to arbitration if there is a valid arbitration agreement unless the claim is wholly non-arbitrable.”

The Court reaffirmed that arbitration agreements must be respected and courts should not intervene unless the matter is explicitly non-arbitrable.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled that:

• The dispute should be referred to arbitration as per Clause 19 of the Addendum.
• The High Court’s decision was set aside.
• The District Judge’s order rejecting the Section 8 application was quashed.
• The dispute was directed to be resolved through arbitration.

Impact of the Judgment

• Strengthens Arbitration Enforcement: Reinforces that courts must refer disputes to arbitration if an arbitration agreement exists.
• Clarifies Section 8 of the Arbitration Act: Provides clarity on when courts should intervene in arbitration matters.
• Encourages Alternative Dispute Resolution: Promotes arbitration as the preferred mode for resolving contractual disputes.
• Reduces Judicial Intervention: Limits unnecessary litigation in cases where arbitration agreements are valid and applicable.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that arbitration agreements are upheld and provides clarity on the applicability of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Petitioner Name: M/s Avinash Hitech City 2 Society & Ors..
Respondent Name: Boddu Manikya Malini & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, Telangana.
Judgment Date: 06-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ms Avinash Hitech C vs Boddu Manikya Malini Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Act
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category