Vinnu Goel Vs Satish Goel & Ors (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that a person who signed a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them, even though he had read them or not. Here, the plaintiff has signed the MoU in token of acceptance of the terms thereof and is bound by the terms thereof, including the Arbitration Agreement.
Facts- The present application has been filed by the defendant nos.3 to 6 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that the parties to the present suit be referred to arbitration, in view of the Arbitration Agreement contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2014 executed between the parties.
The petitioner states that the fact of the MoU was not known to her and came to her attention only when sometime in the middle of May 2017, the defendant nos.1 and 2 got into an argument. It was then that she became aware for the first time that there was a Court case that had been instituted by the defendant no.3 against the defendant no.1 and that there was an alleged MoU on the basis of which all the properties of the family, including those that had been self-acquired by the plaintiff herein and are held exclusively or jointly by her, had been allegedly divided between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3. She states that the fraudulent MoU seeks to divide the subject properties as if the defendant nos.3 to 6 were the owners thereof. She further states that she is not a party to the said MoU and has at no point in time ever consented to the division of her self-acquired properties. She states that she has not permitted any of the defendants to deal with or dispose of or partition any of the properties owned by her individually or jointly.
The plaintiff thereafter sought her impleadment in the said Arbitration Petition bearing ARB.P. No.683/2015.
Conclusion- Held that the plaintiff has signed the MoU in token of acceptance of the terms thereof and is bound by the terms thereof, including the Arbitration Agreement.
In Green Rubber Industries and Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 704, the Supreme Court observed that a person who signed a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them, even though he had not read them or claims to be ignorant of the precise legal effect thereof.
I hold that prima facie there is an Arbitration Agreement in existence between the parties to the present suit, contained in the MoU. The dispute raised by the plaintiff in the present suit is prima facie covered within the ambit and scope of the said Arbitration Agreement. I, therefore, hold that the present suit is not maintainable and the parties are accordingly referred to arbitration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present application has been filed by the defendant nos.3 to 6 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) praying that the parties to the present suit be referred to arbitration, in view of the Arbitration Agreement contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2014 (in short the ‘MoU’) executed between the parties.
AVERMENTS IN THE PLAINT:
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the wife of the defendant no.1 and the mother of the defendant no.2 and defendant no. 8, claiming therein that the plaintiff along with the defendants are the joint owner of the following properties:-
