# Ms. Motilal & Sons v. M.D. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 262
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-05-28
- **Case number:** Arbitration Application No. 17 of 2019
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ms-motilal-sons-v-m-d-u-p-cooperative-sugar-factories-federation-ltd-45392
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996: Section 2(4), 11(6) - U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965: Section 2
(a-4), 2(4), (5), 70 - The Court held that
the reference of the dispute to the forum
provided under the Special Act rather than
under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 , despite the fact
that there was an agreement tot he
contrary between the parties. (Para 24)

In order to address the issue whether an
agreement has been entered into by U.P.
Cooperative Societies (respondent) and their
agents (applicants), the provisions of Section 70 of
the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 would be
attracted or the provisions of U.P. Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 would be applicable, the
Court opined that Section 2(4) of the Act of 1996
makes provision of any other enactment or any
rules made thereunder to prevail over the Act of
1996, subject to the conditions prescribed therein.
(Para 21)

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a special act and
the provision of resolution of disputes has been
specifically provided for, as it was the intention of
the legislature that the matter should not be sent
to the civil courts, but an expeditious disposal of
disputes was provided in the act itself. (Para 26)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the distinct advantage of watching the
demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court
is in a better position to evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses.

(4) The appellate court may only
overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
and compelling reasons" for doing so.
(5) If two reasonable or possible views can
be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the
other
to
conviction
-
the
High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour
of the accused."

35. In Dilawar Singh v State of
Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737, the Supreme
Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36
and 37 as under:

"36. The court of appeal would
not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by
manifest illegality. In an appeal against
acquittal, this Court will not interfere with
an order of acquittal merely because on the
evaluation of the evidence, a different
plausible view may arise and views taken
by the courts below is not correct. In other
words, this Court must come to the
conclusion that the views taken by the
learned courts below, while acquitting,
cannot be the views of a reasonable person
on the material on record."

36. We are of the considered view, after
analyzing
the
facts
and
surrounding
circumstances of the case and perusal of
record, that the trial court has rightly
acquitted the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 who
had been shown to have participated in the
second stage of crime on the periphery of the
village as the deposition of prosecution
witnesses in that regard do not inspires
confidence of the Court. No unimpeachable
evidence
had
been
adduced
by
the
prosecution to prove its accusations. In such a
situation of fact, accused opposite parties are
entitled to get benefit of doubt and their
innocence could easily be inferred. Apart
from that, prosecution itself has failed to
prove its accusations beyond all reasonable
doubts. The presence of ladies in the
commission of crime at the second stage is
also doubtful. All the statutory elements, as
required in the commission of crime under
sections 147, 452, 344, 294, 341, 342, 323,
315 and 412 I.P.C. are lacking. There is no
substantial and compelling reason to reverse
the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed
to point out any illegality, infirmity or
discrepancies in the impugned judgement
passed by the trial court.

37. Resultantly, the present appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage itself. The
impugned
judgement
dated
28.05.2019
passed by the trial court in Special Case No.
155 of 2007 (CNR No. UPJS01-0001602007), State vs. Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and
other is hereby affirmed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A262
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Arbitration Application No. 17 of 2019
connected with
Arbitration Application No. 18 of 2019
& other connected cases

Ms. Motilal & Sons ...Applicant
Versus
M.D. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories
Federation Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
-----
11 All. Ms. Motilal & Sons Vs. M.D. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.
263
Counsel for the Respondent:
-----

A. Civil law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996: Section 2(4), 11(6) - U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965: Section 2
(a-4), 2(4), (5), 70 - The Court held that
the reference of the dispute to the forum
provided under the Special Act rather than
under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 , despite the fact
that there was an agreement tot he
contrary between the parties. (Para 24)

In order to address the issue whether an
agreement has been entered into by U.P.
Cooperative Societies (respondent) and their
agents (applicants), the provisions of Section 70 of
the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 would be
attracted or the provisions of U.P. Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 would be applicable, the
Court opined that Section 2(4) of the Act of 1996
makes provision of any other enactment or any
rules made thereunder to prevail over the Act of
1996, subject to the conditions prescribed therein.
(Para 21)

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a special act and
the provision of resolution of disputes has been
specifically provided for, as it was the intention of
the legislature that the matter should not be sent
to the civil courts, but an expeditious disposal of
disputes was provided in the act itself. (Para 26)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10

List of Cases cited:-

1. Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development
Authority & anr. Vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers &
Contractors (2012) 3 SCC 495

2. T. Barai Vs Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177

3. Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Vs Essar Power
(2008) 4 SCC 755 (followed)

4. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. 2014 (4) AWC 3543 (followed)

5. Krishna Bahadur Vs Purna Theatre & ors.
(2004) 8 SCC 229
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,
learned counsel for all the applicants as
well as Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan for the
respondent through video conferencing in
view of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Since by means of instant
applications
all
the
applicants
have
approached this Court under Section 11 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 for
appointment of a sole arbitrator for
adjudication of the dispute with the
respondent and, thus, involve common
questions of facts and law, hence, they are
being decided by this common judgment
and order.

3. It has been submitted that the
applicants are agents, authorized and
appointed by U. P. Cooperative Sugar
Factories Federation by means of similar
agreements entered into, between the
applicants and U. P. Cooperative Sugar
Factories Federation Ltd. on different dates
i.e.
1.9.2015,
4.11.2016,
27.9.2017,
5.9.2018,
4.11.2016,
3.10.2015,
12.10.2016,
30.10.2017,
30.10.2017,
30.10.2017,
2.2.2017,
21.12.2016,
31.8.2015,
16.11.2016,
30.10.2017,
21.12.2016,
21.8.2015
17.5.2015
and
21.8.2015 respectively for a period of three
years.

4. According to the terms of the
agreement, the applicants (agents) were to
sell and dispose of the sugar offered to it to
the best advantage of the concerned
factories for maximum price obtainable in
the market. It has been submitted that
certain differences arose between the
applicants and the respondent with regard
to supply, rate and payment pursuant to
which a notice dated 21st February, 2019
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(dated 12.3.2019 by some applicants) were
sent by the applicants to the respondent
invoking Arbitration Clause 26 of the
aforesaid agreements for reference of the
disputes to the sole arbitrator to be
appointed in accordance with Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. When the respondent did not
respond to the above notice dated 21st
February, 2019/12.3.2019, the applicants
have approached this Court under Section
11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1966 for appointment of an arbitrator.

6. It has been submitted that
according to clause 26 of the agreements,
the
dispute, differences
or
questions
touching or arising out of the said
agreement shall be referred to the sole
arbitrator by the Managing Director of the
Federation, who may either arbitrate
himself or appoint any other person as
arbitrator, and it was further agreed that the
provisions
of
U.P.
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from
time to time shall apply.

7. It has been submitted that in view
of the above fact that the differences and
disputes have arisen between the parties
and also that the provisions of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been made
applicable as per the agreements, therefore,
prayer was made that a sole arbitrator be
appointed to settle the disputes arising
between the applicants and the respondent.

8. The opposite parties have contested
the claim of the applicants. It has been
submitted that a perusal of the agreements
would indicate that the Federation is an
Apex society of Cooperative Sugar Mills
Societies in Uttar Pradesh, and all the
cooperative societies in Uttar Pradesh are
its members and whereas, a decision was
taken that the Federation will appoint
agents who shall sell the sugar produced by
various cooperative sugar factories. In
furtherance to the said agreements, the
applicants were appointed as agents. The
respondent- Federation is a Cooperative
Society
duly
registered
under
the
provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act 1965, and is also an Apex society of
the cooperative sugar mills in the State of
Uttar Pradesh as defined under the
provisions of Section 2 (a-4) of U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

9. The contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent is that in the
agreements entered into between the
applicants and the respondent i.e. between
the apex society cooperative (Federation)
and
its
agents
(the
applicants),
the
provision of Section 70 of the U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965
are
attracted, which provide for reference of
the dispute to the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, under the provisions of U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

10. It was contended by the
respondent that one of the businesses of the
respondent-federation is the sale of sugar
produced by its member - societies, hence,
the present dispute is within the scope of
"business of co-operative society" i.e.
Federation, and the dispute squarely falls
within
purview
of
section
70
of
Cooperative Societies Act. Even otherwise,
the final authority to decide whether the
dispute comes within the ambit of business
of a cooperative society or not, is the
Registrar.

11. In sum and substance, it was
vehemently urged that the dispute arising
between the co-operative societies and its
11 All. Ms. Motilal & Sons Vs. M.D. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.
265
agents relating to sale of the sugar can be
settled by resorting to the machinery
prescribed
under
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965. It was further
contended that the provisions of the Act of
1996 are inconsistent with the provisions of
the Act of 1965, and therefore provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
would not be applicable in the present case
as special adjudicatory forum is provided in
Statute for settlement of a dispute.

12. The question which arises for
determination by this Court is as to whether
in the facts of the present case where an
agreement has been entered into by U.P.
Cooperative Societies (respondent) and
their agents (applicants), the provisions of
Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 would be attracted for
reference of the dispute for arbitrator or the
provisions
of
U.P.
Arbitration
and
Conciliation
Act,
1996
would
be
applicable.

13. Clause 26 of the agreements is
quoted as under:-

"26. Every disputes, difference or
questions touching or arising out of this
agreement or the subject matter thereto
excepting where the decision of the
Federation shall be final under this
agreement shall be referred to the sole
arbitration of the Managing Director of the
Federation, who may either himself or
appoint any person as arbitrator whose
decision thereon shall be binding on the
parties
hereto.
The
provisions
of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as
amended from time to time shall apply."

14. Clause 26 of the agreements
clearly provide that disputes, differences
or questions touching or arising out of the
agreement would be referred to the sole
arbitrator and also that the provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
shall apply.

15. Counsel for the applicants has
vehemently submitted that provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 would be applicable in the present
case as the parties have unequivocally
agreed as such, and the said agreement
has also been acted upon by both the
parties and is therefore binding between
them.

16.

Learned
counsel
of
the
applicants
has
submitted
that
the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
was enacted to give effect to the United
Nations Commission On International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted in
1985, by the Parliament in exercise of
powers
under
Article
253
of
the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that
any law made by the Parliament to give
effect to any treaty, agreement or
convention or any decision made at an
international conference in exercise of
powers
under
article
253
of
the
Constitution of India would prevail over
any law made by the state legislature. It
is noticed that the applicants have not
sought any relief to declare section 70 of
the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965
to be repugnant to the provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,
and neither Union of India or State of U.P
have been made parties and, therefore, no
relief in this regard can be granted.

17. Even otherwise the argument of
repugnancy deserves to be rejected on the
account of the fact that entry 13 of the
concurrent list in the 7th schedule reads as
under:-
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"13. Civil procedure, including
all matters including the Code of Civil
Procedure at the commencement of this
Constitution, limitation and arbitration"

18. The U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965 had received the assent of the
President on 24.3.1966. The requirement,
therefore,
of
Article
254(2)
of
the
Constitution was satisfied and hence the
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,1965
prevailed over the Indian Arbitration Act,
1940. Thereafter the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted by the
Parliament repealing the earlier Arbitration
Act, 1940. The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act 1996, itself saves the provisions of
other enactments like the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act as per section 2(4) and (5) of
the said Act which specifically provide for
operation of other special acts which
provides for arbitration, and therefore, there
cannot be any repugnancy between the two
Acts. This aspect of the matter has been
duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh
Rural Road Development Authority and
another vs L.G Chaudhary Engineers
and Contractors (2012) 3 SCC 495. The
Supreme Court relied upon its earlier
judgement in the case of T.Barai vs Henry
Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177.

19. To resolve the controversy, scope
of both the enactments need scrutiny.
Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act provides that:-

"This part except subsection (1)
of section 40, section 41 and 43 shall apply
to of the arbitration under any other
enactment for the time being in force, as of
the
arbitration
purpose
was
to
//***********arbitration agreement and if
that other enactment for an arbitration
agreement, except insofar as the provisions
of this part are inconsistent with that
another in enactment or with any rules
made thereunder."

Section 2 (4) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1986 provides that
the provision of that section will apply only
if it is not inconsistent with the other
enactment
or
with
any
rules
made
thereunder.

20. A perusal of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 and rules of 1968
clearly indicate that they together form a
complete code so far as arbitration in
matters relating to Cooperative societies are
concerned. The rules provide for the
manner in which the reference is to be
made, for the appointment of an arbitrator,
an appeal against his decision, a second
appeal against the decision of the appellate
authority and also the manner in which the
arbitration award shall be executed. The act
and the rules provide for all aspects relating
to the operation of Arbitration proceedings
in connection with the dispute, and it is
difficult to see as to which provision of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can
be made applicable to an order passed
under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act
read with the rules.

21. The inconsistencies in both the
enactments are writ large. Under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act there has
to
be
an
agreement
containing
the
arbitration clause in order to invoke the
provisions of the Act, while under the
cooperative societies act the existence of
agreement is dispensed with. Any dispute
relating to Constitution, management of the
business of a cooperative society other than
a dispute regarding the disciplinary action
taken against the paid servant of the society
arises, would be referable for arbitration.
11 All. Ms. Motilal & Sons Vs. M.D. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.
267
Again there is difference in formation of
the
Arbitral
Tribunal
in
both
the
enactments. Under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbitral Tribunal as
defined under section 2(1)(d), a sole
arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators can be
appointed,
while
under
the
U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act the dispute is
referable to the Registrar or Board of
arbitrators in accordance with chapter XVII
of the rules of 1968, who may decide the
matter himself or appoint an arbitrator. The
parties, therefore, clearly do not have a
choice or autonomy in the choice of the
Arbitral Tribunal under the Cooperative
Societies Act.

In my considered opinion section
2 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act
makes
provision
of
any
other
enactment or any rules made thereunder to
prevail over of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,1996, subject to the
conditions prescribed therein.

22. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam vs Essar Power
(2008)
4
SCC
755
considering
the
applicability of the provision for arbitration in
the Electricity Act, 2003 viz. a viz. The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 held
that the general act will have to give way to
the special act and in paragraph No.60 of the
said judgement it has been held as under:-

"However, since the electricity act,
2003 has come into force w.e.f 10/06/2003,
after the date on adjudication of disputes
between licensees and generating companies
can only be done by the State Commissions
or the arbitrator (or arbitrators) appointed
by it. After 10/06/2003 there can be no
anyone other than state commission of the
arbitrator (or arbitrators) nominated by it."

23. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs
State of U.P. and Others 2014 (4) AWC
3543, where in similar circumstances where
the agreement between the parties had
provided for application of The Arbitration
and Conciliation Act 1996, while according
to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 which was a special
Act, provided for Arbitration according to
Section 18 of the said Act and this Court
while dismissing the petition observed as
under:-

"5. Section 18 empowers the
Council, upon receipt of a reference, to
conduct a conciliation in terms of the
provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Where the conciliation is not successful
and is terminated without a settlement
between the parties, the Council is
empowered to itself take up the dispute for
arbitration or refer it to any institution or
centre
providing
alternate
dispute
resolution services. Sub-section (4) of
Section 18 begins with a non obstante
clause which operates notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force. Under sub-section (4),
the Council or as the case may be, the
centre
providing
alternative
dispute
resolution services shall have jurisdiction
to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator in a
dispute between the supplier located within
its jurisdiction and a buyer located
anywhere in India.

6. The Act thus provides for a
statutory remedy of an arbitration in 5 subsection (4) to Section 18 notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any
other law for the time being in force.

7. In the present case, the Council
is seized of the reference on a claim
petition filed by the second respondent.

8. In this view of the matter, the
relief of certiorari for quashing all the
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings
before
the
Council
is
manifestly misconceived. The proceedings
had been entertained by the Council in
pursuance of the provisions of the Act.
Though there may be an arbitration
agreement
between
the
parties,
the
provisions of Section 18 (4) specifically
contain a non obstante clause empowering
the Facilitation Council to act as an
Arbitrator. Moreover, section 24 of the Act
states that sections 15 to 23 shall have
effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force."

24. The Division Bench of this Court
in the above judgement has approved the
reference of the dispute to the forum
provided under the Special Act rather than
under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996, despite the fact that
there was an agreement to the contrary
between the parties, as is the case in the
instant petition also. The above Division
Bench Judgment clearly applies to the facts
of the present case, and the ratio decidendi
therefore is liable to be followed in present
case also.

25. It was contended by the counsel for
the applicants that where the parties have
willingly and voluntarily agreed that the
dispute be referred under the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,
then they cannot be permitted to resile from
the same. It was contended that the said
agreement is binding between the parties. It is
the contention of the applicants that the
respondent is deemed to have waived its
statutory right for redressal of their disputes
in terms of the U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act.

26. U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a
special act and the provision of resolution of
disputes has been specifically provided for, as
it was the intention of the legislature that the
matter should not be sent to the civil courts or
other forum, but an expeditious disposal of
disputes was provided in the act itself. Public
purpose can also be read into this provision,
so as to prevent the cooperative societies
from being exposed to litigation in the civil
courts.

27. In the present case even though it is
accepted that the respondent cooperative
society had waived its right for arbitration in
accordance with the provisions of the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the same
shall not be given effect to by the court, as it
has to be demonstrated that no public interest
is involved in such a waiver. This aspect of
the matter was considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Krishna Bahadur
vs Purna Theatre and others (2004) 8 SCC
229 when it was observed:-

"9. The principle of waiver
although is akin to the principle of
estoppel; the difference between the two,
however, is that whereas estoppel is not a
cause of action; it is a rule of evidence;
waiver is contractual and may constitute a
cause of action; it is an agreement between
the parties and a party fully knowing of its
rights has agreed not to assert a right for a
consideration.

10. A right can be waived by the
party
for
whose
benefit
certain
requirements or conditions had been
provided for by a statute subject to the
condition that no public interest is
involved therein. Whenever waiver is
pleaded it is for the party pleading the
same to show that an agreement waiving
the right in consideration of some
compromise came into being. Statutory
right, however, may also be waived by his
conduct."
11 All. M/s. Wise Industrial Park Ltd., Moradabad Vs. UPSIDC Ltd. & Anr.
269

28. In the present case, the applicants
have entered into agreements with the
Federation for purchase of the sugar
produced by the members of the Federation
which
are
themselves
Cooperative
societies. A dispute having arisen which is
clearly pertaining to the business of a
cooperative society where all the members
of the respondent would be affected by the
dispute raised by the applicant and
therefore the agreement was entered into by
the Federation, was clearly on behalf of all
its member Sugar Mills and therefore there
was a "public interest" element involved in
the
said
agreement
and
hence
the
Federation could not have intended to
waive
this
statutory
prescription
of
redressal of disputes by arbitration in
accordance with U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965.

29. It has also been contended by the
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
arbitration proceedings cannot proceed
under the Cooperative Societies Act,
inasmuch
as
the
Registrar
of
the
Cooperative Societies has sufficient interest
and
involvement
of
the
respondent
Federation, while an arbitrator has to be an
independent person. This argument of the
applicant also cannot be accepted in light of
the fact that the reference of dispute under
section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act
has to be referred to the Registrar, who may
either arbitrate the matter himself or
appoint another arbitrator. In case the
applicants have any apprehension about the
independence of the arbitrator, the same
can be raised before the Registrar who is
competent to resolve such a controversy as
he is sufficiently empowered under the Act.

30. In light of the above discussions,
in the facts of the present case where there
exists a dispute between the Federation and
agents, then the same has to be referred to
the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under
the provisions of Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965 and provisions of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 would not be
attracted. The applications of the applicants
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 are, therefore, misconceived.

31. No other point was urged by the
applicants.

32. These applications moved by the
applicants under section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for
appointment of sole arbitrator are devoid of
merits and are hereby rejected.
----------
(2020)11ILR A269
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 143 of
2019

M/s. Wise Industrial Park Ltd., Moradabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
UPSIDC Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Khanna, Ms. Gunjan Jadwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Anadi
Krishna
Narayana,
Swapnil
Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Kumar

A.
Civil
Law
-
Securitisation
and
Enforcement
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002-
Section
13(2)

Existence
of
Arbitration Agreement - - Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 2(b), 7,
11(6A) - Clause 33 is an arbitration clause