9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Appointment of an Arbitrator for dispute resolution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940: The primary contention raised by the Bihar State Electricity Board was that the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable in this court as it is not a "civil court" within the meaning of the Arbitration Act. The definition of "court" under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act was cited, which states: "'Court' means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not, except for the purpose of arbitration proceedings under section 21, include a Small Cause Court." The Board argued that the expression "civil court" should not be synonymous with any court that has jurisdiction to decide civil rights. The official liquidator, however, relied on Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, which states: "The court which is winding up the company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of-(a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company." The court concluded that under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, it has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of suits and proceedings by the company, notwithstanding any other law, thus allowing the present application. 2. Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Board contended that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to this case and that the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is barred under Article 137, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from when the right to apply accrues. The Board argued that the right to apply accrued in 1960. The official liquidator countered that Article 137 does not apply to applications under the Arbitration Act and even if it did, the right to apply had not accrued before 9th June 1962. The court examined the relevant dates and correspondence, including letters dated 9th January 1960, 12th March 1960, and 18th May 1960, which indicated ongoing negotiations and no definitive accrual of the right to apply. The court concluded that the right to apply did not accrue before 9th June 1962, making the application timely under Section 458A of the Companies Act. The court also held that Article 137 does not apply to applications under the Arbitration Act, maintaining the interpretation from previous Supreme Court decisions. 3. Appointment of an Arbitrator for dispute resolution: The court directed the Bihar State Electricity Board to file the original agreement dated 6th July 1956 within two weeks. The dispute, as per paragraph 6(ii) of the agreement, was to be referred to an arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the parties. If no agreement on an arbitrator was reached within three weeks of filing the original agreement, the court would appoint an arbitrator. The court clarified that the parties involved are the Monghyr Electric Supply Company Limited (in liquidation) through the official liquidator and the Bihar State Electricity Board. No order was passed against the Government of Bihar due to Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
|
