cpc

legal relationship


As we have Arbitration Act 1996.

Whether part I of the arbitration act, 1996 applies to any case?! based on arbitration act?

Might be Yes Part I applies to any cases of arbitral disputes as

Definition of

“Section - 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 clearly stated

that

Arbitration agreement.- (1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or Not.”

Currently there was a proposed amendment after the words i.e.,

"whether contractual or not"

Amendment of Section 7

In section 7 of the Act,

In sub-section (1), after the words “contractual or not” add “,

concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration.”

[NOTE: This amendment makes it abundantly clear that a dispute

must be arbitrable in the first place.]

In the year 2014, December, 12 or 15 , it was introduced in the parliament sessions, please post the same if anyone have the updates on "Amendments to Arbitration Act, 1996"'s assent. 

Here the question(s) arises about legal relationship?

What is a legal relationship?

As of now, there was no such definition provided by any law in this world includes Indian Law too.

Here is my small definition about Legal Definition: (please feel free to provide your suggestions/ comments/advices/ etc.. thank you for your valuable time spent on this information.

My site : https://sites.google.com/site/onlineservicesankarajmarri/)

Here is the explanation:

{

Legal relationship, it might be;

Any legal proceedings between two parties in place are treated as "Legal Relationship".

Example:

A petition/suit filed by person "X" against "Y" person. This creates a legal relationship between "X" and "Y". Whether they known each other or not.

Example case study for only for reference other than that there is no such false intention(s):

1. Mr.Meghanath, resident of Hyderabad entered into a franchise agreement with Samson Enterprises Inc. (“Samsun” for brevity) of United States of America on 11-Mar-2012 for promoting and marketing a new drug by name “Heelvare” (a registered trade mark in number of countries including India) in the state of Telangana for a period of 3 years. This franchise agreement also contains an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes arising out of this franchise agreement and the place of arbitration is Singapore. The franchise agreement also authorizes the franchisee Mr. Meghanath to take necessary legal action against third parties who breach any of the rights with regard to the promotional and marketing activities of the drug in the state of Telangana.

2.During the subsistence of the franchise agreement, Mr.Meghanath and his wife Mrs.Renuka started a  partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Megha Enterprises, wherein both the partners are holding 50% stake and interest. As per registered partnership deed and even indeed, in Megha Enterprises, Mrs. Renuka is Managing Partner and Mr.Meghanath – a sleeping partner. The firm sometime in the month of August started selling similar drug by name “Feelvare” in the state of Telangana including Hyderaba. Apart from marketing the new drug “Feelvare”, the firm started giving demeaning advertisements in the local dailies against the “Heelvare”.

3. In the first week of September, 2014 the Samsun issued couple of letters to M/s Megha Enterprises, seeking the later to desist from using the deceptively similar mark and from disparaging the former’s product. On 12-Sep-2014, M/s Megha enterprises filed a suit under Section 142 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 against Samsun in City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking a declaration that their use of the name “Feelvare” for the drug does not infringe the trademark rights of the defendant.
 
Here are the points to be considered:
 

i) Whether part I of the arbitration act, 1996 applies to this case?

ii) Whether the subject matter of the suit is arbitrable subject matter?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is a party to an arbitration agreement


i) Whether part I of the arbitration act, 1996 applies to this case?

Yes Part I applies to this case as
 
Section - 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 clearly stated that Arbitration agreement.- (1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or Not.

ii) Whether the subject matter of the suit is arbitrable subject matter?

Yes, there is a franchise agreement also contains an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes arising out of this franchise agreement.
As Mr Meghanath, resident of Hyderabad entered in to a franchise agreement with Samson enterprises Inc. ('Samsun' for brevity) of United states of America on 11-Mar-2012 for promoting and marketing a new drug by name "Heelvare" (a registered trade mark in number of countries including India) in the state of Telangana for a period of 3 years.
Section - 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 clearly stated that
2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
Here with enclosing the certified certificate which clearly bonafides that Mr Meghanath has signed franchise agreement with Samson Enterprises Inc. and also he has the Partnership (Sleeping partner with 50% stake and interest) deed with Ms Megha Enterprises.
Which indicates that indirectly having separate agreement between Ms Megha Enterprises and Mr Meghanath.
 
Now coming to the point that Mr. Meghanath has legal actions against the third parties who breaches any of the rights with regard to the promotional and marketing activities of the drug in the state of Telangana.

iii) Whether the plaintiff is a party to an arbitration agreement

Yes indirectly/directly the plaintiff is a party to an arbitration agreement.

According to THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932

As per section 9 - Sleeping partner can file a suit for rendition of account (Citation: Sita Ram vs. Radha Rai, AIR 1968 SC 534).

This defines that Samson Enterprises Inc. has an agreement with Mr Meghanath alias Ms Megha Enterprise 

So third party is M/s Megha Enterprise, hence I pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass decree for referral order to arbitration

}



 



Attached File : 155416464 legal-definition-ankaraj-marri.pdf downloaded 38 times
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x