9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (4) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Punjab High Court and restore the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi dated January 29, 1963 allowing the application filed by the appellant under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal is allowed - C.A. 760 OF 1966 - - - Dated:- 22-4-1969 - S.M. SIKRI, R.S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ. JUDGMENT This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated March 20, 1965 in FAO no. 82-D of 1963. The said appeal was filed under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi dated January 29, 1963 passed on an application under s. 20 of the Act by the Union of India for filing the arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt was later on vacated. Pending the suit of the respondent in the Calcutta High Court, the Union of India filed an application under s. 20 of the Act in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi for getting the agreement of reference filed in the Court and for making the reference of the disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle No. 1, C.P.W.D. Calcutta. The respondent opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the court of Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was contended that the appellant had filed an application under s. 34 of the Act for stay of the suit filed in the Calcutta High Court, and, therefore any sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration proceedings under section 21, include a Small Causes Court; Section 1.4 provides that the award may be filed in the court. Section 3 1 ( 1 ) enacts that an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. Section 31(2) provides that all questions regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award or an arbitration agreement between the parties to the agreement shall be decided by the Court in which the award has been filed and by no other Court. Section 31(3) states that all applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been filed and to no other Court. Section 31 (4) reads as follows Notwithstanding anything c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second place, the application must be made in any reference. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that an application for stay of suit under s. 34 of the Act was an application made in a reference within the meaning of s. 31(4) of the Act. In support of this proposition reference was made to the decision of this Court in Kumbha Mawji v. Union of India() in which it was held that the phrase in any reference in s. 31 (4) of the Act was comprehensive enough to cover an application first made after the arbitration is completed and a final award made and the sub- section is not confined to applications made during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding. It was pointed out that sub-s. (1) of s. 31 determines the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case 1953 S.C.R. 878. There are different sections in the Arbitration Act whereby an application is to be made even before any reference has been made. Section 8 for instance, provides for an application to invoke the power of the Court, when the parties fail to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator to whom the reference can be made. So also S. 20 provides for an application to file the arbitration agreement in Court so that an order of reference to an arbitrator can be made. These are clearly applications anterior to the reference but they lead to a reference. Such applications are undoubtedly applications. in the matter of a reference and may fall within the purview of s. 31(4) of the Act even though these applications are made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder s. 34 of the Act for the stay of the suit it cannot be said that the Court which otherwise has no jurisdiction in the matter becomes a Court within the meaning of s. 2 (c) of the Act. The view that we have expressed is borne out by the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Choteylal Shamlal v. Cooch Behar Oil Mills Ltd.( I.L.R. [1954] 1 Ca]. 418); Britannia Building Iron Co. Ltd. v. Gobinda Chandra Bhattacharjee (LXV C.W.N. 325) and Basanti Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Dhingra Brothers (A.I.R. 1949 Cal. 684). For these reasons we consider that the application for stay under s. 34 of the Act cannot be treated as an application in a reference under s. 31(4) of the Act. Therefore, the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi was right in hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
