1973 (7) TMI 115 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disputes between the parties are covered by the arbitration clause.
2. Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, affect the arbitration process.
3. Whether the appointment of the General Manager or any Railway Official as an arbitrator is opposed to principles of natural justice.
4. Whether the rescission of the contract by the 1st plaintiff affects the arbitration clause.
5. Whether the complexity of the factual and legal questions in the suit precludes arbitration.
6. Whether the failure to disclose the names of potential arbitrators affects the arbitration process.
7. Whether the readiness and willingness of the defendants to arbitrate at the commencement of the suit and application date are sufficient.
8. Whether the General Manager's involvement in prior correspondence disqualifies him as an arbitrator.
9. Whether the 3rd plaintiff's non-party status to the contract affects the arbitration agreement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Coverage of Disputes by Arbitration Clause:
The court found that the disputes raised by the plaintiffs are indeed covered by the arbitration clause in the contract. The plaintiffs argued that their claims were not subject to arbitration, but this contention was rejected by the lower court and upheld on appeal.

2. Non-Party Plaintiffs to Arbitration Agreement:
The plaintiffs contended that since plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not parties to the arbitration agreement, there could not be a partial reference to arbitration. The court found that the entire subject matter of the suit was covered by the arbitration agreement, and there was no independent or distinct subject matter requiring adjudication by the Civil Court. The inclusion of plaintiffs 2 and 3 was seen as a strategy to circumvent the arbitration clause.

3. Appointment of General Manager as Arbitrator:
The plaintiffs argued that appointing the General Manager or any Railway Official as an arbitrator was opposed to principles of natural justice. The court noted that the General Manager, Mr. Lee, had retired and was succeeded by Mr. Kaul. The objection based on bias was personal to Mr. Lee, and there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Kaul would be biased. The court dismissed the contention of departmental bias without supporting authority.

4. Effect of Contract Rescission on Arbitration Clause:
The plaintiffs claimed that the rescission of the contract by the 1st plaintiff nullified the arbitration clause. However, the court did not find this argument persuasive and upheld the validity of the arbitration clause despite the contract's rescission.

5. Complexity of Factual and Legal Questions:
The plaintiffs argued that the suit involved intricate questions of fact and law that could not be satisfactorily resolved by arbitration. The court did not find this argument sufficient to deny arbitration, emphasizing that the arbitration clause covered the disputes in question.

6. Disclosure of Potential Arbitrators:
The plaintiffs contended that the failure to disclose the names of potential arbitrators was opposed to principles of natural justice. The court did not find merit in this argument, noting that the General Manager could provide a panel of names for the contractor to raise objections.

7. Readiness and Willingness to Arbitrate:
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants failed to aver their readiness and willingness to arbitrate at the commencement of the suit and the application date. The court found that the defendants had indicated their willingness to arbitrate in correspondence prior to the suit and were ready and willing to proceed with arbitration.

8. General Manager's Prior Involvement:
The plaintiffs argued that the General Manager's involvement in prior correspondence disqualified him as an arbitrator. The court noted that the General Manager, Mr. Lee, had retired and was succeeded by Mr. Kaul, who had no involvement in the prior correspondence. The court dismissed the contention of bias against Mr. Kaul.

9. Non-Party Status of 3rd Plaintiff:
The plaintiffs argued that the 3rd plaintiff's non-party status to the contract affected the arbitration agreement. The court found that the entire subject matter of the suit was covered by the arbitration agreement and that the inclusion of the 3rd plaintiff was unnecessary and a strategy to circumvent arbitration.

Conclusion:
The court rejected all the contentions raised by the appellants and upheld the order granting a stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.