>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Jingong Company v. Guangfa Company (Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)
锦宫公司与广发公司商品房买卖合同纠纷管辖权异议案
【法宝引证码】

Jingong Company v. Guangfa Company (Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)
(Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)
锦宫公司与广发公司商品房买卖合同纠纷管辖权异议案

Jingong Company v. Guangfa Company
(Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)

 

锦宫公司与广发公司商品房买卖合同纠纷管辖权异议案

 【裁判摘要】

 根据仲裁法十八条的规定,仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的,当事人可以补充协议;达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效。根据最高人民法院《关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复》第一条的规定,在仲裁法实施后重新组建仲裁机构前,当事人达成的仲裁协议只约定了仲裁地点,未约定仲裁机构的,双方当事人在补充协议中选定了在该地点依法重新组建的仲裁机构的,仲裁协议有效;双方当事人达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效。依照上述规定认定仲裁协议无效的,当事人向有管辖权的人民法院提起诉讼,人民法院应当受理。

Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court

 中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事裁定书
Final Civil Ruling No. 11 [2006] of the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court (2006)民一终字第11号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Defendant of the Original Trial): Jingdezheng Jingong Industry Co., Ltd., situated at 4/F, Xinyue Plaza, Zhushan Middle Road, Jingdezheng City, Jiangxi Province. 上诉人(原审被告):景德镇市锦宫实业有限公司,住所地江西省景德镇市珠山中路新跃大厦4楼。
Legal Representative: Jiang Xinyue, chairman of the board of directors of this company. 法定代表人:江新跃,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Chen Yaoquan, attorney-at-law of Beijing T&T Law Firm. 委托代理人:陈耀权,北京市天同律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff of the Original Trial): Jingdezheng Guangfa Properties Co., Ltd., situated at 4/F, Building B, No. 473, Zhonghua South Road, Jingdezhen City, Jiangxi Province. 被上诉人(原审原告):景德镇广发置业有限公司,住所地江西省景德镇市中华南路473号B栋4楼。
Legal Representative: Xiang Genji, general manager of this company. 法定代表人:项根基,该公司总经理。
Authorized Agent: Sun Lanying, employee of this company. 委托代理人:孙兰英,该公司职工。
Authorized Agent: Lan Weidong, attorney-at-law of QZ & WD(Jiangxi)Law Firm. 委托代理人:兰卫东,江西求正沃德律师事务所律师。
As to the case of dispute over the real estate sales contract between Jingdezheng Jingong Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jingong Company) and Jingdezheng Guangfa Properties Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangfa Company), the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province rendered the Civil Ruling No. 9 [2005] of the First Civil Division of the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province on December 9, 2005 and rejected the objection to jurisdiction put forward by Jingong Company. Jingong Company was not satisfied with the said ruling and filed an appeal to this court. This court formed a collegial bench after acceptance of this case, and organized both parties for inquiry on February 20, 2006. Chen Yaoquan, Sun Lanying and Lan Weidong participated in the inquiry. Now the trial of this case has been completed. 上诉人景德镇市锦宫实业有限公司 (以下简称锦宫公司)与被上诉人景德镇广发置业有限公司(以下简称广发公司)商品房买卖合同纠纷一案,江西省高级人民法院于2005年12月9日作出(2005)赣民一初字第9号民事裁定驳回了锦宫公司提出的管辖权异议。锦宫公司不服该裁定,向本院提起上诉。本院受理后依法组成合议庭,于2006年2月20日组织双方当事人进行了询问。锦宫公司的委托代理人陈耀权,广发公司的委托代理人孙兰英、兰卫东参加了询问。本案现已审理终结。
Upon trial, the court of the first instance found that: Jingong Company put forward its objection to jurisdiction during the course of defense, and on November 11, 2005, the court of the first instance convened Jingong Company and Guangfa Company and held a hearing for the objection to jurisdiction put forward by Jingong Company. 一审法院经审理查明:锦宫公司在答辩期内提出管辖权异议,一审法院于2005年11月11日召集锦宫公司、广发公司双方对锦宫公司提出的管辖异议事由进行了听证。
Jingong Company raised its objection to jurisdiction for the reasons that: 1. From the aspect of case acceptance, the said dispute should not be accepted by the court. On March 7 and September 7 of 2004, both parties concluded the Supplementary Agreements and stipulated to choose the local arbitral body for arbitration, so according to Article 5 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, this case should not fall within the jurisdiction of the people's court. And according to the Letter No. 135 [1995] of the People's Government of Jiangxi Province on the Establishment of the Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission (of October 196, 1995), this case should be accepted by the Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission. 2. The accusation that the people's court violated the provisions on territorial jurisdiction. Jingong Company was a Sino-foreign joint venture enterprise, according to the judicial interpretations, the first instance of this case should be the Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, the provincial capita city of Jiangxi Province. The Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Problem as to Which Level of the People's Court Should Accept the Objection of the Parties Involved to the Effectiveness of Arbitration Agreements prescribes that: where there is no stipulation or clear stipulation about the arbitration commission between the parties involved, the said objection should fall within the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court at the locality of the defendant. Even if the said objection should fall within the jurisdiction of the people's court, it should be governed by the Intermediate People's Court of Jingdezheng City. 3. There existed the issue of hierarchical jurisdiction. In light of the opinions of those well versed in this industry, the threshold value for the subject matter of the litigation of the first instance of a civil case as accepted by the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province is 50 million yuan, however, the value of the subject matter of this case is only 30 million yuan, so according to the provisions on hierarchical jurisdiction within the people's courts, this case should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court of Jingdezheng City. Therefore, this case should fall within the jurisdiction of either the Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission or the Intermediate People's Court of Jingdezheng City. 锦宫公司提出管辖权异议认为,1.从受案范围看,该纠纷不归人民法院主管。双方当事人在2004年3月7日、9月7日签订的《补充协议》中已达成协议选择当地仲裁机构仲裁,根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第五条规定,本案不应由人民法院管辖。根据江西省人民政府府厅字[1995]135号《关于组建景德镇仲裁委员会的函》 (1995年10月16日),本案应由景德镇仲裁委员会受理。 2.违反地域管辖的规定。申请人是中外合资企业,根据相关司法解释规定,本案一审由省会城市所在地即南昌市中级人民法院受理。《最高人民法院关于当事人对仲裁协议的效力提出异议由哪一级人民法院管辖问题的批复》规定,当事人对仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明的,由被告所在地的中级人民法院管辖,即使由人民法院主管,也应由景德镇市中级人民法院管辖。 3.级别管辖存在问题。据业内人士反映,江西省高级人民法院受理一审民事案件的诉讼标的起点在5000万元以上,而本案标的只有约3000万元,按人民法院内部级别管辖的规定,也应由景德镇市中级人民法院管辖。因此,本案要么由景德镇仲裁委员会管辖,要么由有管辖权的中级人民法院管辖。
Guangfa Company defended that: there were five agreements concluded between both parties, of which only two agreements included an arbitration term, moreover, the arbitral body was not clearly stipulated in the said arbitration terms, and there was no arbitration term in the other three agreements, so the people's court still had the jurisdiction over this case. In addition, in light of the list of domestic arbitration commissions attached to the Arrangement of the Supreme People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Territory and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Judicial Interpretation No. 3 [2000] of the Supreme People's Court), there were only Nanchang, Xinyu and Pingxiang in Jiangxi Province that had established an arbitration commission according to the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China装完逼就跑. So the legality of Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission could excluded. 广发公司答辩称,双方当事人之间的协议有五份,其中只有两份协议包含仲裁条款,且仲裁条款均存在仲裁机构约定不明的情况,其他三份协议并未约定仲裁条款,因此人民法院对本案仍有管辖权。另外,依据《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》(法释 [2000]3号)所附的内地仲裁委员会名单,截止1999年5月31日,内地依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》成立的仲裁委员会在江西省的只有南昌、新余、萍乡三地。由此可见,所谓景德镇仲裁委员会的合法性可以排除。
Upon trial, the court of the first instance held that: the real estate sales dispute involved in this case was caused by the real estate, so it should fall within the jurisdiction of the people's court in the place where the real estate is located according to Item (1) of Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The real estate in question was situated within Jiangxi Province, so the acceptance of this case by the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province did not violate the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction, and the objection of Jingong Company to the territorial jurisdiction did not meet the law. In addition, according to Paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue about the Acceptance of the First Instance of Cases concerning Civil and Economic Disputes by the Higher People's Courts (No. 11 [1999] of the Supreme People's Court), since the target of this case was in excess of 10 million yuan, so it had reached the threshold value for the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province to accept the first instance of civil cases. 一审法院经审理认为:本案涉及的是房地产买卖纠纷,属于不动产引起的纠纷,根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十四条第(一)项的规定,应由不动产所在地人民法院管辖。该案买卖的不动产坐落在江西省境内,江西省高级人民法院受理本案并未违反专属管辖的规定,锦宫公司对地域管辖的异议不符合法律规定。另外,根据1999年4月9日《最高人民法院关于各高级人民法院受理第一审民事经济纠纷案件问题的通知》(法发[1999]11号)第1条第4款的规定,本案标的超过1000万元,达到了由江西省高级人民法院受理一审民事案件的界限。
As to the arbitration term: Jingong Company concluded with Zheng Yuntuan the House Sales Contract and three copies of Supplementary Agreements respectively on November 26, 2003, March 7, 2004, April 7, 2004 and September 7, 2004, of which, there was no arbitration term stipulated in the House Sales Contract of November 26, 2003; Article 14 of the Supplementary Agreement of March 7, 2004 stipulated that “any matter that is not explicitly stipulated shall be settled through negotiations, or shall be arbitrated by the regional arbitral body if it could not be settled through negotiations”; there was no arbitration term stipulated in the Supplementary Agreement of April 7, 2004; and Article 6 of the Supplementary Agreement of September 7, 2004 stipulated that “any matter that is not explicitly stipulated shall be settled through negotiations, or shall be arbitrated by the local arbitral body if it could not be settled through negotiations.” Article 2 of the House Title Transfer Agreement (there was no time of conclusion in it) concluded between Zheng Yuntuan and Guangfa Company on December 4, 2004 stipulated that the rights and obligations in the said four agreements should be inherited by Guangfa Company. The said agreements were concluded at Jingdezheng City, and both Guangfa Company and Jingong Company were situated at Jingdezheng City. In light of the contents stipulated in the said agreements, it was clear that Zheng Yuntuan and Jingong Company had stipulated to adopt the method of arbitration to solve disputes. Whether the “regional arbitral body” prescribed in the Supplementary Agreement of March 7, 2004 or the “local arbitral body” prescribed in the Supplementary Agreement of September 7, 2004 stipulated by both parties means that the arbitration should be conducted by the local Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission. Article 1 of the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues about the Confirmation of Effectiveness of Arbitration Agreements prescribes that: “where the parties involved conclude an arbitration agreement and only stipulate the place of arbitration but not the arbitral body after the implementation of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and before the re-organization of the arbitral body, if both parties choose the arbitral body reorganized at the said place in the supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be valid; if both parties can not reach a supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be invalidated.” According to the investigation, although the People's Government of Jiangxi Province approved that the People's Government of Jingdezheng City could establish “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission”, the People's Government of Jingdezheng City did not reorganize the “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission” after the implementation of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, which could be proved in the list of domestic arbitration commissions attached to the Arrangement of the Supreme People's Court on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Territory and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Judicial Interpretation No. 3 [2000] of the Supreme People's Court). Up to the present, Jingdezheng City did not establish any arbitration commission that could accept the arbitration of civil and commercial cases, if this case was to be transferred to the “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission” as pleaded by Jingong Company, the dispute of this case would not be accepted by any organ. Guangfa Company did not choose to conclude a supplementary agreement with Jingong Company for choosing an arbitral body in any other place but directly lodged a lawsuit with the people's court, its lawful litigation rights should be protected. The arbitration terms in the aforesaid Supplementary Agreements should be confirmed as invalid, and this case should fall within the jurisdiction of the people's court. In sum, there was no contractual or legal basis for the application of Jingong Company, and the objection to the jurisdiction over this case as put forward by Jingong Company should be rejected according to Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China法小宝. 关于仲裁条款问题。锦宫公司与郑云团于2003年11月26日、2004年3月7日、2004年4月7日、2004年9月7日签订的《售房协议》及《补充协议》共四份。其中,2003年11月26日《售房协议》没有仲裁条款。2004年3月7日《补充协议》第十四条约定“未尽事宜,协商解决,协商不成,由地方仲裁机关仲裁”。2004年4月7日《补充协议》没有仲裁条款。2004年9月7日《补充协议》第六条约定“未尽事宜,协商解决,协商不成,由当地仲裁机关仲裁”。郑云团与广发公司于2004年12月4日签订的《房屋产权转让协议》(合同上没有注明签订时间)第二条约定郑云团在前述四份协议中的权利义务均由广发公司承受。以上协议均在景德镇市签订,广发公司及锦宫公司住所地均在景德镇市。从以上协议约定的内容来看,郑云团与锦宫公司之间约定了以仲裁解决纠纷的方式,意思清楚明确。不论是从2004年3月7日《补充协议》规定的“地方仲裁机关”,还是2004年 9月7日《补充协议》规定的“当地仲裁机构”,双方约定的均是由所在地在景德镇仲裁委员会仲裁。但根据《最高人民法院关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复》第1条规定“在《中华人民共和国仲裁法》实施后重新组建仲裁机构前,当事人达成的仲裁协议只约定了仲裁地点,未约定仲裁机构的,双方当事人在补充协议中选定了在该地点依法重新组建的仲裁机构的,仲裁协议有效;双方当事人达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效。”据调查,江西省人民政府虽然批准景德镇市人民政府可以组建“景德镇仲裁委员会”,但景德镇市人民政府并未在《中华人民共和国仲裁法》实施之后重新组建“景德镇仲裁委员会”,这在《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排好饿但是不想动》(法释[2000]3号)所附的内地仲裁委员会名单上可以得到证明。到目前为止,景德镇尚未组建可以接受民商事案件仲裁事务的仲裁委员会,如果将本案移送锦宫公司所称的“景德镇仲裁委员会”受理,则将使本案纠纷落入无机构受理的结果。广发公司并未选择与锦宫公司补充协议重新选择其他地点的仲裁机构,而是直接向人民法院起诉,对其合法诉讼权利应予以保护。两份《补充协议》的仲裁条款的约定应认定为无效,本案应由人民法院管辖。综上,锦宫公司的申请缺乏合同和法律依据,依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条的规定,裁定驳回锦宫公司对本案管辖权提出的异议。
BASIC FACTS 
Jingong Company was not satisfied with the ruling of the first instance and filed an appeal to this court and pleaded to cancel the ruling of the first instance and reject the allegations of Guangfa Company for the facts and reasons that: 1. The arbitration terms stipulated by both parties were lawful and valid. Both parties were enterprises of Jingdezheng City, and the places where the agreements were concluded and performed were in Jingdezheng City, and the statements of “arbitration by the regional arbitral body” and “arbitration by the local arbitral body” in the relevant clauses did not constitute the circumstance of “having only stipulated the place of arbitration but not the arbitral body”, but should be understood as “the arbitration by the arbitral body of Jingdezheng City”. 2. The “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission” was established on January 28, 2006, and it could accept arbitration cases. So the autonomy of the will of the parties involved should be respected, and the dispute should be submitted for arbitration and ruling. 锦宫公司不服一审裁定,向本院提起上诉,请求撤销一审裁定,驳回广发公司的起诉。事实和理由:1.双方约定的仲裁条款合法有效。双方当事人均属景德镇的企业,协议签订地、履行地均在景德镇市,有关条款表述的“由地方仲裁机关仲裁”、“由当地仲裁机关仲裁”,不属于“只约定仲裁地点、未约定仲裁机构”的情形,而应理解为“由所在地景德镇的仲裁委员会仲裁”。 2.景德镇仲裁委员会已于2006年1月28日正式成立,可以受理仲裁案件。应尊重当事人的意思自治,将争议提交仲裁裁决。
Guangfa Company defended that: the facts were clearly ascertained and the laws were correctly applied in the ruling of the first instance to reject the jurisdictional objection of Jingong Company, so the ruling of the first instance should be maintained for the facts and reasons that: 1. When both parties concluded Supplementary Agreements, there was no arbitral body in Jingdezheng City, so both parties only stipulated the place of arbitration but not the arbitral body, and the stipulations on arbitration should be invalidated. The “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission” was not established until January 28, 2006, and both parties did not sign any supplementary agreement for choosing the newly established arbitral body after the dispute arose. 2. When the court of the first instance accepted this case, the arbitral body still had not been established, so the jurisdiction by arbitration could be excluded. 广发公司答辩称,一审裁定驳回锦宫公司提出的管辖权异议,认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,依法应予维持。事实和理由: 1.双方签订《补充协议》时,当地并未成立仲裁机构,且只约定仲裁地点,未约定仲裁机构,有关仲裁协议约定无效。景德镇仲裁委员会于2006年1月28日才依法设立,双方在发生争议后,对新建的仲裁机构,没有再达成补充协议选定。2.一审法院受理本案时,仲裁机构仍未成立,依法可以排除仲裁管辖。
This court found in the second instance that: on September 9, 2005, Guangfa Company lodged a lawsuit with the court of the first instance against Jingong Company and pleaded: 1. to rescind the House Sales Agreement concluded between Guangfa Company and Jingong Company on November 26, 2003, the Supplementary Agreement on March 7, 2004, the Supplementary Agreement on April 7, 2004 and the Supplementary Agreement on September 7, 2004; 2. to order Jingong Company to return the 16,363,946.6 yuan of house purchase money to Guangfa Company; 3. to order Jingong Company to compensate 3,700,000 yuan for breach of contract to Guangfa Company; and 4. to order Jingong Company to compensate 15 million yuan of losses to Guangfa Company; and 5. to order Jingong Company to assume all the litigation costs for this case. Jingong Company put forward its objection to jurisdiction to the court of the first instance on October 8, 2005. 本院二审查明:2005年9月9日,广发公司以锦宫公司为被告向一审法院提起诉讼,请求:1.解除广发公司、锦宫公司签订的2003年11月26日《售房协议》、2004年3月7日《补充协议》、2004年4月7日《补充协议》、2004年9月7日《补充协议》;2.由锦宫公司返还广发公司购房款现金16 363 946.6元;3.由锦宫公司支付广发公司违约金370万元;4.锦宫公司赔偿广发公司损失1500万元;5.由锦宫公司承担本案一切诉讼费用。锦宫公司于 2005年10月8日向一审法院提出管辖权异议。
During the course of the second instance, Jingong Company submitted the relevant documents on establishing the “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission” on January 28, 2006. Guangfa Company also recognized the fact that the “Jingdezheng Arbitration Commission” was established on January 28, 2006. 锦宫公司二审期间提交了景德镇仲裁委员会于2006年1月28日依法成立的有关文件。广发公司对景德镇仲裁委员会于 2006年1月28日依法成立的事实予以认可。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
This court holds that: in light of the objection to jurisdiction as put forward by Jingong Company as well as the defenses of Guangfa Company, the focus of dispute between both parties is whether the dispute of this case should fall within the jurisdiction of the people's court. 本院认为,从锦宫公司上诉提出的管辖权异议和广发公司的抗辩看,双方争议的焦点是本案争议是否属于人民法院主管。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
There are two arbitration terms stipulated by both parties involved in this case: Article 14 of the Supplementary Agreement of March 7, 2004 stipulated that “any matter that is not explicitly stipulated shall be settled through negotiations, or shall be arbitrated by the regional arbitral body if it could not be settled through negotiations”; and Article 6 of the Supplementary Agreement of September 7, 2004 stipulated that “any matter that is not explicitly stipulated shall be settled through negotiations, or shall be arbitrated by the local arbitral body if it could not be settled through negotiations.” In light of the contents of the said agreements, although both parties have stipulated to settle disputes by way of arbitration, the arbitral body has not been clearly specified whether according to the “regional arbitral body” as stipulated in the Supplementary Agreement of March 7, 2004 or according to the “local arbitral body” as stipulated in the Supplementary Agreement of September 7, 2004. The Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China clearly prescribes the selection of arbitral bodies: Article 18 of which prescribes that: “Whereas an arbitration agreement fails to specify or clearly specify the matters concerning arbitration or the choice of the arbitration commission, the parties concerned may conclude a supplementary agreement. If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the arbitration agreement shall be invalidated.” And Article 1 of the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues about the Confirmation of Effectiveness of Arbitration Agreements prescribes that: “where the parties involved conclude an arbitration agreement and only stipulate the place of arbitration but not the arbitral body after the implementation of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and before the re-organization of the arbitral body, if both parties choose the arbitral body reorganized at the said place in the supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be valid; if both parties can not reach a supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be invalidated.” Since both parties involved in this case have different opinions with regard to the choice of arbitral body and have not reached any supplementary agreement or chosen an arbitral body established in Jingdezheng City. So the arbitration terms stipulated in the said two Supplementary Agreements shall be invalidated. The said civil dispute should fall within the jurisdiction of the people's court, and it is proper for Guangfa Company to file an action with the people's court and the people's court to take charge of it. The reasons for the appeal of Jingong Company are not established and could not be supported. In sum, this court rules as follows according to Item (4) of Article 108 and Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: 本案涉及双方当事人约定的仲裁条款有两条:一是2004年3月7日《补充协议》第十四条“未尽事宜,协商解决,协商不成,由地方仲裁机关仲裁”;二是2004年9月 7日《补充协议》第六条“未尽事宜,协商解决,协商不成,由当地仲裁机关仲裁”。从上述协议内容看,双方虽然曾经约定以仲裁解决纠纷的方式,但是无论从20N年3月 7日4《补充协议》约定的“地方仲裁机关”,还是2004年9月7日《补充协议》约定的“当地仲裁机关”,都未明确仲裁机构。《中华人民共和国仲裁法》对当事人约定选择仲裁机关有明确的法律规定,该法第十八条规定“仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的,当事人可以补充协议;达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效”。最高人民法院《关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复》第1条规定“在《中华人民共和国仲裁法》实施后重新组建仲裁机构前,当事人达成的仲裁协议只约定了仲裁地点,未约定仲裁机构的,双方当事人在补充协议中选定了在该地点依法重新组建的仲裁机构的,仲裁协议有效;双方当事人达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效。”本案双方当事人对选择仲裁机构的问题发生了争议,并没有重新达成补充协议,未对在该地点依法重新组建的仲裁机构予以选定。因此,该两份《补充协议》中约定有关仲裁事项的条款为无效条款。该民事纠纷属于人民法院受案范围,广发公司向人民法院提起诉讼,由人民法院主管并无不当。锦宫公司上诉理由不能成立,依法不予支持。综上,根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零八条第(四)项、第一百五十四条之规定,裁定如下:
JUDGMENT 
The appeal shall be rejected and the original ruling shall be maintained. 驳回上诉,维持原裁定。
The 50 yuan of case acceptance fee for the second instance shall be borne by Jingong Company. 二审案件受理费50元,由景德镇市锦宫实业有限公司负担。
This ruling shall be final. 本裁定为终审裁定。
Chief Judge Feng Xiaoguang 审 判 长 冯小光
Acting Judge Liu Yinchun 代理审判员 刘银春
Acting Judge Chen Zhaolun 代理审判员 陈朝仑
March 10, 2006 二00六年三月十日
Court Clerk Wei Da

 书 记 员 韦 大
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese