9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1956, against Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Syndicate"), stating that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs odd was due from it which it failed to pay in spite of acknowledging that the above said amount was due from it. Notice in the petition was ordered to be issued by this court on January 13, 1983, for March 3, 1983. The notice was despatched on behalf of the company by Mr. R. N. Narula, advocate to the Syndicate, on January 18, 1983, which must have been received within one week thereafter. On March 3, 1983, Mr. A.K. Jaiswal advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent and made a request for time to enable him to file a written statement. At his request, the case was adjourned to April 7, 1983. Two days bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request was made by Mr. A. It. Jaiswal to adjourn the case for enabling him to file the written statement on March 3, 1983, that is, more than a month, after having received notice by the Syndicate. In that situation, the inference is that the Syndicate knew the contents of the petition and it wanted to defend the same on merits. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia , provides that where any party to an arbitration agreement commences any legal proceedings in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the Government and also to make applications on its behalf. If the counsel wanted time for the purpose of having fuller instructions, he could have asked for it specifically, for, he was not a layman ignorant about the legal position but a professional lawyer retained by the Government for the purpose of acting and pleading on behalf of the Government as a recognised agent. He, however, chose instead to ask for time specifically for filing a written statement and this act he purported to do on behalf of the State Government which he was fully empowered to do. The State took the benefit of his appearance and his successful prayer for adjournment of the case by one month for the purpose of filing the written statement. In those circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Union of India v. Hira Lal Sud [1978] PLR 239, wherein it was held that an oral request for adjournment for filing a written statement is as good as a written request. It was further held that if a written request seeking adjournment to file a written statement amounts to taking a step in the proceedings, there is no reason why an oral request to the same effect would not amount to taking such a step. That decision was followed in Segat Brothers v. Food Corporation of India [1983] CLJ (C Cr) 24, wherein similar observations were made. Mr. Bhagirath Das made a reference to Harbans Lal v. National Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 NUC (Punj.) 4017, and Punjab State v. Moji Ram, AIR 1957 Punj. 223, to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uage of section 34 of the Act that the existence of a dispute is a condition precedent for referring the matter to the arbitrator. Therefore, the defendant, in an application under the said section, should bring all the material before the court so that it may be able to record a finding that the subject-matter of dispute was agreed to be referred to the arbitrator. If such material is not provided, the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Reference in this regard may be made to my decision in Daman Anand v. Hira Lal, AIR 1974 P. H. 232, wherein it was held that an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings in a suit must disclose the existence of a dispute between the parties which woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been made mala fide to delay the proceedings. The last submission of Mr. Khaitan is that an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable in a winding-up petition In support of his contention, he places reliance on a decision of this court in Salig Ram v. New Suraj Financiers Chit Fund Company (C.A. No. 8 of 1979 in C.P. No. 147 of 1978, decided on July 12, 1979). I also find substance in this submission. The jurisdiction for ordering winding-up of a company is a special jurisdiction which has been conferred on the High Courts. The object of passing such an order is that the assets of the company should be realised and debts paid expeditiously. The passing of such an order against the company has a se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
