B C SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1994-4-25
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 08,1994

MESSRS B.C.SAHA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM BHAROSE V. KALLU MAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DANDASI SAHU [REFERRED TO]
SANGANER DAL AND FLOUR MILL VS. F C I [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.K.Batabyal, J. - (1.)-Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed on 8th April, 1986 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Award Case No. 535 of 1985 and Matter No. 1565 of 1985, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.)PURSUANT to an invitation of Tender for construction of reservoir for Darjeeling Water Supply Improvement Scheme, Messrs. B. C. Saha submitted a Tender which was accepted by the State Government and the parties entered into an agreement which contained an arbitration clause. Messrs. B. C. Saha made an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which was registered as Special Suit No. 55 of 1983 when dispute and differences arose between the parties for referring the disputes to the Arbitrator named in the Arbitration Clause. There was an order for filing the Arbitration Agreement in due course and the point of dispute was confined to the fact whether the Superintending Engineer had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 15,15,295.91p. on account of claim for carriage of goals by head-load. The learned Arbitrator heard the parties and made an interim Award and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,55,455/- including the interest payable to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum upto the date of making of the Award. The State of West Bengal challenged this interim Award under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. It was contended on behalf of the State was that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to take an interim Award. The second contention on behalf of the State was that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain a revised claim and the Award was beyond the scope of the order of reference. The first contention was negatived by the learned Court and the second contention was upheld.
Against this judgment and order an appeal has been taken to this court.

(3.)THE first point which was argued by the learned Lawyer of the State Respondent was that when the parties entered into an agreement as per the Tender, the Partner who signed on behalf of the firm, Messrs. B. C. Saha had no authority under the terms of the Partnership Deed to refer a dispute to the arbitration clause 'in the agreement. It is not disputed that in the original Partnership Deed there is no provision for referring any dispute to arbitration. In the rectification Partnership Deed executed on 20-9-1986 the following clause was introduced by the first time:
"20. That all disputes and differences and questions whatsoever which shall either during the continuance of the partnership or otherwise arise between the partners of their respective representatives or between any partner and the representatives of the other partners touching these presents or constructions or applications thereof or any clause or thing herein contained any account, valuation or division of assets, debts or omission of any partner or as to any other matter in any well relating to the partnership business of the affairs or the rights, duties or liabilities of any partner under these presents shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator if the partners may agree upon one, otherwise to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each partner and the arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act or any other enactment relating thereto for the time being in force".



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.