JETHANAND AND SONS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1961-2-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 06,1961
JETHANAND AND SONS
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
PRAKASH CHAND AGARWAL VS. HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1970-9-54] [FOLLOWED]KAMALNARAIN SHARMA VS. DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA [LAWS(MPH)-1964-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAIN DASS VS. CH. NEBHA RAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1967-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHAMBA VALLEY TRANSPORT LTD [LAWS(HPH)-1966-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KAMAL SINGH RAMPURIA [LAWS(CAL)-1965-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
KHUB CHAND VS. RAM CHAND [LAWS(ALL)-1987-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR MALKEET SINGH GILL VS. HARKEERAT SINGH DHILLON [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-269] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2025-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL MAGANLAL THAKKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-4-2] [REFERRED]
KUDAPA SUBBANA VS. CHITTURI GANDHI [LAWS(APH)-1972-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE [LAWS(P&H)-1977-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
SAYED RASHIAMAD SYED ZAINUDDIN MOULVI VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1964-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
HPMC LIMITED VS. KEDAR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
H S BEDI VS. DHANNI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-1972-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SALIG RAM VS. UMA SHANKER [LAWS(ALL)-1976-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARENDRA NATH SINHA VS. KRISHNA KUMAR NAG [LAWS(SC)-1966-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. BHANU PRATAP SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHAND & OTHERS VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN ROADWAYS P VS. P METHURAI VEERASWAMI M DHANAPALAN [LAWS(MAD)-1963-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
PIAR CHAND & OTHERS VS. RANJEET SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-163] [REFERRED]
MEENA RAM VS. AMOLAK RAM [LAWS(DLH)-1968-9-1] [REFERRED 2.]
MANJU DEVI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHAMED SALIA LEBBAI AND ORS. VS. MOHAMED HANIFA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1968-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAMAN VS. KUMARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-196] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIMACHAL SHODDY MILLS LTD [LAWS(HPH)-1976-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVARAM PODDAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1962-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI RANI VS. KHAIRATI LAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
PETLAD TURKEY RED DYE WORKS COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY NORTH AHMEDABAD [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHESHWAR PURBEY VS. SHRI SHRI 108 RAM JANAKI JEE S. [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
T.L. JAGANNATHA IYER VS. JEEVAN ALIAS BAPOO AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
MAHA RAM VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1969-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVRAM PODDAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1962-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR PAKHIRA VS. NANIBALA PAKHIRA [LAWS(CAL)-1963-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND SPG AND WVG MILLS VS. BIJLI COTTO : MILLS P LTD [LAWS(SC)-1966-12-7] [REFERRED]
SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR VS. MOHINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-1991-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
Ranchbodmal VS. Nawaratanmal [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. USHA SODHI [LAWS(DLH)-2000-8-3] [REFERRED]
PUNAMCHANDRA REVASHANKAR JOSHI VS. RAMJIBHAI MAGANLAL [LAWS(GJH)-1965-12-18] [REFERRED]
MURALILAL MAHABIR PRASAD VS. B R VAD [LAWS(BOM)-1970-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM MOHAMMAD SANA ULLAH AND SONS VS. FIRM HAJI RAHIM BUX AND SONS [LAWS(ALL)-1963-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
THACKERS PRESS AND DIRECTORIES LTD VS. METROPOLITAN BANK LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1963-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
G VENKATARATNAM VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-1970-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
BAWA LAL DASS AND ORS. VS. MAHANT SOHAN DASS [LAWS(P&H)-1968-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
K S DAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1992-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-241] [REFERRED TO]
TEMPTON JEHANGIR FRAZER VS. RANCHHODDAS KHIMJI ASHER [LAWS(GJH)-1965-4-1] [REFERRED 10.]
ISAC OSMAN HAJI VS. VALIMOHMAD ISAC [LAWS(GJH)-1967-4-9] [REFERRED]
SMT MANJU DEVI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)These three appeals were filed by the appellants M/s. Jethanand and Sons with certificate of fitness granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
(2.)The appellants entered into three separate contracts with the Government of the United Provinces (now called the State of Uttar Pradesh) on March 20, 1947, May 27, 1947, and June 28, 1947, for the supply of stone ballast at Shankar Garh, District Allahabad. The contracts which were in identical terms contained the following arbitration clause:
"All disputes between the parties hereto arising out of this contract whether during its continuance or after its rescission or in respect of the construction or meaning of any clause thereof or of the tender, specifications and conditions or any of them or any part thereof respectively or anything arising out of or incident thereto for the decision of which no express provision has hereinbefore been made, shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned and his decision shall in all cases and at all times be final, binding and conclusive between the parties."
(3.)Pursuant to the contracts, the appellants supplied stone ballast. Thereafter, purporting to act under cl. (16) of the agreements, the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division referred certain disputes between the appellants and the State of Uttar Pradesh, alleged to arise out of the performance of the contracts to arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned. The Superintending Engineer required the appellants to appear before him at the time fixed in the notices. The appellants by their letter dated May 31, 1951, declined to submit to the jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer, and informed him that if he hears and determines the cased ex parte, the "decisions will not be binding" on them. On February 7, 1953 the Superintending Engineer made and published three awards in respect of the disputes arising under the three contracts and filed the same in the court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow. The appellants applied for setting aside the awards alleging that the contracts were fully performed and that the dispute alleged by the State of Uttar Pradesh to have arisen out of the contracts could not arise after the contracts were fully performed and that the State could not refer those alleged disputes to arbitration. They also contended that the awards were not valid in law because on the arbitration agreements, action was not taken under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Civil Judge, Lucknow, held that the disputes between the parties were properly referred to the Superintending Engineer by the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the awards were validly made. Against the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Lucknow, three appeals were preferred by the appellants to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
(2.)The appellants entered into three separate contracts with the Government of the United Provinces (now called the State of Uttar Pradesh) on March 20, 1947, May 27, 1947, and June 28, 1947, for the supply of stone ballast at Shankar Garh, District Allahabad. The contracts which were in identical terms contained the following arbitration clause:
"All disputes between the parties hereto arising out of this contract whether during its continuance or after its rescission or in respect of the construction or meaning of any clause thereof or of the tender, specifications and conditions or any of them or any part thereof respectively or anything arising out of or incident thereto for the decision of which no express provision has hereinbefore been made, shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned and his decision shall in all cases and at all times be final, binding and conclusive between the parties."
(3.)Pursuant to the contracts, the appellants supplied stone ballast. Thereafter, purporting to act under cl. (16) of the agreements, the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division referred certain disputes between the appellants and the State of Uttar Pradesh, alleged to arise out of the performance of the contracts to arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned. The Superintending Engineer required the appellants to appear before him at the time fixed in the notices. The appellants by their letter dated May 31, 1951, declined to submit to the jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer, and informed him that if he hears and determines the cased ex parte, the "decisions will not be binding" on them. On February 7, 1953 the Superintending Engineer made and published three awards in respect of the disputes arising under the three contracts and filed the same in the court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow. The appellants applied for setting aside the awards alleging that the contracts were fully performed and that the dispute alleged by the State of Uttar Pradesh to have arisen out of the contracts could not arise after the contracts were fully performed and that the State could not refer those alleged disputes to arbitration. They also contended that the awards were not valid in law because on the arbitration agreements, action was not taken under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Civil Judge, Lucknow, held that the disputes between the parties were properly referred to the Superintending Engineer by the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the awards were validly made. Against the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Lucknow, three appeals were preferred by the appellants to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.