9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently. The circumstances under which this application has been filed are these : The Registrar of Companies, Bihar, had moved this court for winding up Monghyr Electric Supply Company Limited, and by an order passed on the 18th December, 1962, the company was ordered to be wound up by the court. The official liquidator is in charge of the liquidation. In August, 1965, the official liquidator had filed a report praying that the State Electricity Board may be directed to pay Rs. 45,637, being the balance of the claim admitted by them, without prejudice to the right of the official liquidator to claim any further amount of compensation as and when fixed by an arbitrator. A further prayer was made to the effect that the court may appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen with respect to the valuation of the properties of the company taken over by the Government of Bihar. By an order passed on the 17th September, 1965 (Item No. 5 of Order No. 48), notice was issued to the State Electricity Board to show cause why the board should not be directed to pay compensation to the official liquidator. The question of appointment of an arbitrator was postponed until ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government of Bihar was ordered to be made a party by Order No. 57, Item No. 2. It may be mentioned that the Government of Bihar has not entered appearance in this case, which is being contested only on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the Board is that this application filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not entertainable by this court, as it is not a "civil court" within the meaning of the Arbitration Act. According to learned counsel for the Board, a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to a "court having jurisdiction in the matter to which an agreement relates", that the agreement be filed in court, but it is argued that the meaning of the expression "court" in this context has to be found out from the definition given in section 2( c ) of the Arbitration Act. The definition of the word "court" given in the Arbitration Act is as follows : " '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 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on anywhere else, except by leave of the court. The next contention raised on behalf of the Board, which falls for consideration, is a bar of limitation. It is contended by Sri K.D. Chatterji, appearing for the Board, that the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963), is applicable in this case and this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is barred under article 137, as the company's right to apply had accrued in 1960 (either on the 9th January, i960, or on 12th March, 1960, or on the 18th May, 1960). Learned counsel for the official Liquidator has, on the other hand, contended that article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to this application filed under the Arbitration Act, apart from the fact as to when the right to apply had accrued. According to him, even if any article of the Limitation Act applied, the right to apply had not accrued prior to the 9th June, 1962. For the purpose of considering the applicability of article 137 of the Limitation Act and the contentions as to when the right to apply had accrued, or could have" accrued, paragraph 6( ii ) of the deed dated the 6th July, 1956, and article 137 of the Limitation Act have to be quoted. A copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer the matter to arbitration according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is, however, made clear again that, since the delay has been due to your non-acceptance of the valuation, the State Electricity Board will not be liable for payment of interest with effect from the date of communication of the valuation to you. You are also requested to please furnish clearance certificates from the income-tax and sales tax department and also about the refund of excess service connection charges realised from the consumers and security deposit of the consumers." Then, on the 12th March, 1960, Mr. Kuriyan, describing himself as the Chief Engineer of the Bihar State Electricity Board, sent another letter to the managing agent of the company on the same subject. A copy of this letter has been supplied with the petition of the Board filed on the 22nd February, 1966. The letter reads thus : "With reference to your letters Nos. 2077 and 2078 dated the 30th January, 1960, I am to observe as follows : (1) It is not possible to give a copy of the detailed valuation of the items, the value of which has been revised; an abstract of the same is, how ever, enclosed which would s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2,56,714 (Rupees two lakhs fifty-six thousand seven hundred and fourteen) only. Please arrange to receive the payment at an early date." On behalf of the official liquidator, a letter from the secretary of the board to the director of the company, dated the 9th June, 1962, on the same subject is relied upon. A copy of this letter has been annexed to the report of the official liquidator dated the 13th January, 1966, and it reads thus: "With reference to your letter No. 10/22 dated the 2nd November, 1960, I am directed to say that the Board regrets its inability to reconsider the valuation already made by it and paid to the company." (The letter dated the 2nd November, 1960, mentioned in the quotation, will be referred to in due course). Upon the question of applicability of article 137 of the Limitation Act, Sri Shreenath Singh has argued for the official liquidator that the application mentioned in that article can only refer to an application filed under the Civil Procedure Code, as has been, more than once, observed by the Supreme Court of India while interpreting the corresponding article 181 of the old Indian Limitation Act, 1908. That article prescribed the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the word 'applicant' should also be made." But, the suggestion of the Law Commission with respect to the corresponding provision of limitation was as follows : "Other applications for which no period of limitation is provided by any law for the time being in force." The period of limitation was three years from when the right to apply accrued. The Limitation Act of 1963 omitted from article 137 the crucial words "by any law for the time being in force ". Therefore, in my opinion, the interpretation put upon by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on article 181 of the old Limitation Act should still prevail in interpreting article 137 of the new Limitation Act. The relevant decisions of their Lordships are reported in A.I.R. 1953 Supreme Court 98 ( Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. [1953] 23 Comp. Cas. 1 [1953] SCR 351) and A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 752 ( Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva [1964] 25 FJR 179 (SC)). Learned counsel for the Board has contended that the question whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act can come within the purview of article 137 was not specifically dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the 9th January, 1960. The same situation had prevailed when the next letter dated the 12th March, 1960, was sent by Mr. Kuriyan. In this letter also, it was stated that if the company did not intimate its acceptance of the valuation made by the Board, the matter should be referred to arbitration without further argument on this issue. Here also, the right of the parties to refer their dispute to arbitration according to their agreement was being conceded. In my opinion, the next letter, to which reference has been made by Sri Chatterji, dated the 18th May, 1960, does not also indicate the terminus a quo for the commencement of limitation, if any. This letter reiterated the Board's "total final valuation of the assets" of the undertaking. Under clause 6(ii) of the document dated the 6th July, 1956, the vendors and assignors and the purchaser and assignee had to make detailed valuation of the assets and if any correspondence had ensued on this matter, it can hardly be said that a right to apply under section 20 of the Arbitra-Act had accrued in the process of correspondence. Reference may now be made to a letter dated the 2nd November, 1960, sent by the company to the Minister i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
