SADHU SINGH GHUMAN Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on February 14,1990

(M/S) Sadhu Singh Ghuman Appellant
VERSUS
Food Corporation of India and Others Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HARYANA BREWERIES LTD VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-112] [REFERRED TO]
PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS INDIAN MANUFACTURING LIMITED VS. GLOWBUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1998-7-58] [REFERRED]
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. N K COAL SALES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2003-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUBHAI MANGABHAI SONERI VS. MOTIVARAS PREMJI MAVJI [LAWS(GJH)-1992-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
VINODBHAI VALLABHBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2002-12-51] [REFERRED]
SUPER THERMAL POWER PROJECT VS. GOURLSETHL SATYAVATHL [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
A RAMASWAMY DIED VS. K RAMA MURTHY DIED [LAWS(APH)-1998-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST REP VS. S K VISWANADHAM CONTRACTOR POLAVARAM W G DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD JABALPUR VS. MANAGER VIJAYA BANK BRANCH BROADWAY HUBLI [LAWS(KAR)-1996-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
CAPP INTERNATIONAL PVT LIMITED VS. SIDCO [LAWS(KER)-2003-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL SHYAMLAL MITTAL VS. UMESH RATANLAL MITTAL [LAWS(BOM)-1998-7-127] [REFERRED TO]
H.P. STATE FOREST CORPORATION VS. KISHORI LAL MAHENDRA [LAWS(HPH)-1992-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
B.C. Varma and R.D. Shukla VS. Laxminarayan Food Corporation of India [LAWS(MPH)-1992-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA BREWERIES LIMITED VS. BOMBAY AMMONIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1994-10-18] [REFERRED]
RAGHUBIR AGGARWAL VS. JAGDISH PRASHAD GARG [LAWS(DLH)-1995-9-40] [REFERRED]
CELEBI DELHI CARGO TERMINAL MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT LTD VS. ARYAN CARGO EXPRESS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
BANALA YASODA DEVI VS. BILAKANTI VENKATCSWARLU [LAWS(APH)-1990-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMINARAYAN BHOORMAL VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1992-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
L VITTALA NELLI VS. J GOPALAKRISHNA NELLI [LAWS(KAR)-1992-6-22] [FOLLOWED ON]
PRAGATI ENGINEERING {P LTD VS. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD [LAWS(CAL)-1991-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
MERU ENGINEERS P LTD VS. ELECTRIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT COMPANY [LAWS(MAD)-1990-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
P C JOY AND CO VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(KER)-1991-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
K R S A KARUPPAN CHETTIAR AND COMPANY VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-1994-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DEEPAK S O BHARATSINGH DIXIT [LAWS(BOM)-1995-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED VS. STERLITE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1999-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
KALAIYARASEE VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1991-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
L.D. INDUSTRIES VS. HINDUSTAN WIRES LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-188] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH SATAPATHY AND ANR. VS. SACHIDANANDA DASH AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1996-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DAIRY FARM AND COLDRINKS (THR APPELLANT NO 2 & 3) & 2 VS. RASIKBHAI KHODIDAS PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-84] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)Food Corporation of India filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs against the appellant and respondents 2 to 7 on the basis of an agreement between the parties. After service of notice, the appellant entered appearance on December 10, 1984. On January 4, 1985, the appellant filed an application stating as follows:
"That the photostat copy of the original agreement and other documents which have been produced by the plaintiff in their evidence are not visible and clear, and it is very difficult for the defendants to inspect and give the written statement.

3. That it is very essential to get the original documents produced in the Court which are in possession of the plaintiff so that the defendants may file the written statement.

4. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the plaintiff may kindly be ordered to produce the original agreement and other documents which has been filed with the plaint."

(3.)On January 21, 1985, the appellant moved the Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the proceeding of the suit on the ground that there exists an arbitration clause in the suit agreement covering the matter in dispute. The Food Corporation of India contended that the appellant had taken steps in the proceedings of the suit since an adjournment was taken for filing written statement. It was, however, admitted the existence of the arbitration agreement covering the matter in dispute in the suit. The trial Court accepted the request of the appellant and stayed the suit inter alia observing:
".......This application did not contain any prayer for adjournment of the case for filing the written statement. The prayer contained in this application was that the plaintiff be directed to produce the 'original agreement and other documents so that the defendants may file the written statement .... ..... In the present case, the prayer of the defendants that the plaintiff be directed to file the original agreement and other documents in the Court before they could file the written statement cannot be said to be a step in the proceedings because it was not a prayer for adjournment of the case for filing written statement."

;


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