MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION BHOPAL Vs. EVEREST CO-OWNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Managing Director, M.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Bhopal, has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against. Everest Co -owners, A., B. and C., Pushparajnagar, Satna, challenging the judgment and decree dated 4 -1 -1993, passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 32 of 1990, as per which the Award given by the Arbitrator, was ordered to be made the rule of law, and all the objections, except the objection regarding the amount of interest, reaised on behalf of the present appellant/non applicant, were rejected and a decree for the amount of Rs. 3,57,500.00 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of vacation of the godowns till filing of application for arbitration on this amount, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, was granted and which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE first submission made on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel, is that the agreement of lease dated 12 -1 -1983, required compulsory registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Properly Act, and under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and as the aforesaid agreement of lease was not registered, it could not have been received in evidence, because of the bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act, and, on this ground alone, the arbitration clause referred to in the agreement of lease, could not have been imposed, and that, this preliminary objection had been raised by the appellant before the District Judge, Satna, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 32/90 in the Rejoinder of the reply and the same was raised under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge wrongly assumed that the entire controversy about the validity and enforceability of Arbitration Agreement and objection raised by the appellant -Corporation stood impliedly overruled by the Order of the Supreme Court; whereas, the Supreme Court had left open to the District Judge to decide the pending applications under Sections 33 and 30 of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on Om Prakash Chawla v. The Union of India (Vol. LXXIV -1972 The Punjab Law Reporter p. 52). The Punjab Law Reporter page 52), in which it has been held as under :

(3.) RELIANCE was also placed on (Choudhri Reghubir Singh v. Choudhri Umrao Singh (1912 Indian Cases page 500). In this case, after considering all the facts and circumstances and the evidence, it had been held that the agreement was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.