JAWAHAR LAL BARMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
September 25,1961
JAWAHAR LAL BARMAN
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
PUSHPA DEVI SARAF VS. JAI NARAIN PARASRAM PURIA [LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-66] [REFERRED TO]CHAMPA PICTURES VS. MD IBRAHIM CHAMOO [LAWS(CAL)-1980-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
AIRFOAM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1972-5-18] [REFERRED]
M/S. J.K. AGARWALLA VS. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. [LAWS(ORI)-1994-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED VS. R. MANOHARAN [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBILAS MAHTO VS. BABU DURGA BIJAI PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1964-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
KATYAYNI CONTRACTOR PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
GAMMON INDIA LIMITED VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-1995-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
R S E B VIDYUT BHAWAN VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CABLES LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
ENERCON (INDIA) LTD VS. ENERCON GMBH [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS TIRUPATHI VS. K SUBBARAYUDU [LAWS(APH)-1988-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
H S VEDI VS. K S KLER [LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-59] [REFERRED]
VINEET KUMAR VS. BHAGWANDEI [LAWS(ALL)-1977-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GOVARDHANI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. KLOCKNER AND COMPANY [LAWS(ORI)-1995-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
S ZEENATH BEEVI VS. N V K MOHAMED SULTAN ROWTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
THAKKAR VITHALBHAI HARGOVIND VS. KACHHIA JAGJIVAN MOTILAL DECD [LAWS(GJH)-1968-9-9] [REFERRED]
MUKESH NANJI GALA VS. HERITAGE ENTERPRISES [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE BROADCAST NETWORK LIMITED VS. RAJ OIL MILLS LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU AGENCIES P LTD VS. SRIRAM SAHAKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1976-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUNRISE ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-148] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PEECO HYDRAULIC PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2002-1-68] [REFERRED]
SANTOSH KR RANKA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2011-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
FOODS FATS and FERTILISERS LTD VS. RAMKISHANDAS RADHAKISHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1985-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-7-393] [REFERRED TO]
ALLIANCE JUTE MILLS CO LTD VS. LALCHAND DHARAMCHAND [LAWS(CAL)-1977-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
W F DUCAT AND CO PVT LTD VS. HIRALAL PANNALAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UTTAM SINGH DUGAL AND CO PVT LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1971-7-1] [REFERRED]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. OFFSHORE ENTERPRISES INC [LAWS(BOM)-1993-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
UNIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD [LAWS(ORI)-1993-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. KLOCKNER AND COMPANY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-1994-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [LAWS(SC)-1984-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [LAWS(SC)-1984-8-44] [RELIED ON WILLESFORD V. WATSON ,]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. HARDA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1963-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. S.KUMARS ASSOCIATES AKM (JV) [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-2-163] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL DISTILLERY AND BREWERIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE [LAWS(DLH)-1981-9-4] [REFERRED]
SHALIMAR CONSTRUCTIONS VS. SKUAT (K) SHALIMAR, SRINAGAR [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
SURUCHI CHAND VS. NARESH CHAND [LAWS(BOM)-1990-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUMLATABEN D. KAMANI VS. PRAFULCHANDRA NARBHERAM KAMANI [LAWS(BOM)-1976-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHRADDHA COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY, AURANGABAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAGOUDA VS. BHIMANGOUDA VENKANAGOUDA [LAWS(KAR)-1971-3-15] [RELIED ON]
MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION BHOPAL VS. EVEREST CO-OWNERS [LAWS(MPH)-1995-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARLAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
PADIA TIMBER COMPANY(P) LIMITED VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
LAMARCH R C CLEMENTE VS. RIZVI BUILDERS [LAWS(BOM)-1999-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
FAIRCOT S A VS. TATA SSL LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2000-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN OIL MILLS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1972-4-35] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SARJU PRASAD JAGDISH PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-1970-1-16] [REFERRED]
VALLABH PITTE VS. NARSINGDAS GOVINDRAM KALANI [LAWS(BOM)-1962-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD VS. S P ARYA [LAWS(PAT)-1982-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN NAYYAR VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI ARBITRATOR [LAWS(DLH)-1982-12-10] [REFERRED]
SANJAY KAUSHISH VS. D C KAUSHISH [LAWS(DLH)-1991-9-21] [REFERRED 36.]
TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD VS. NALINBHAI B MUNSHAW [LAWS(CAL)-1968-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH GOEL VS. RAM KRISHAN MISSION [LAWS(ALL)-1990-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED VS. U P ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-42] [REFERRED]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. OFF SHORE ENTERPRISES INC [LAWS(BOM)-1993-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
BIRDHI CHAND SUMERMAL VS. RAMDEO [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH GOEL VS. RAM KRISHAN MISSION [LAWS(ALL)-1990-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
UNIFLEX CABLES LTD VS. MTNL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
ACE PRINTG AND PACK PVT LTD VS. MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-186] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG JUTE MILLS LTD VS. FULCHAND KANHAIYALAL CO [LAWS(CAL)-1962-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
LALCHAND DHARAMCHAND VS. ALLIANCE JUTE MILLS CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1971-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SARJU PRASAD JAGDISH PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-1980-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
KHANDELWAL METAL AND ENGG VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-1982-10-25] [REFERRED]
RATTAN LAL KATYAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-2-102] [REFERRED]
NBCC VS. AM RASOOL CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2002-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
I T C LIMITED VS. GEORGE JOSEPH FERNANDES [LAWS(SC)-1989-2-1] [RELIED ON]
MOOLCHAND VS. MANAKCHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1970-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARLAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1976-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
M P POWER GENERATING CO LTD VS. FLOW MORE PVT LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2007-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The principal point which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision relates to the construction of Ss. 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) (hereafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. The respondent, Union of India, filed a petition in the Court of the First Class Sub-Judge at Delhi against the appellant M/s- J. Burman and Co., through its proprietor Jawahar Lal Burman under Ss. 33 and 28 of the Act. The respondent alleged that a concluded contract had been entered into between the parties on August 31, 1949, for supply of 170 1/2 Cwt. of coconut oil by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent had advertised in the Indian Trade Journal for the said supply and the appellant had submitted its tender No. SM-1/104524. This tender was by the respondent which concluded a contract between the parties. The respondent's case was that the said contract was governed by general conditions of contract Form W.S.B. 133. These conditions included an arbitration agreement, Disputes arose between the parties regarding the said contract, and so in pursuance of the arbitration agreement they were referred to the two arbitrators appointed by the parties. After the arbitration proceedings had gone on for a considerable time before the arbitrators the appellant objected to their jurisdiction to de with the disputes on the ground that there was no concluded contract between the parties. This plea made it necessary for the respondent to move the Court for a decision of the question about the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. It was on these allegations that the respondent in its petition claimed that it may be held that there was a concluded contract between the parties containing a valid arbitration agreement. The petition having been made under S. 28 along with S. 33 the respondent prayed that suitable extension of time be granted to the arbitrators for making the award. The appellant pleaded in defence that no concluded contract had been made between the parties and that there was no jurisdiction in, the Court to grant extension under S. 28. The other allegations made by the respondent in its petition were also traversed.
(2.)On these pleadings the learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues. He found that a concluded contract had been proved between the parties as alleged by the respondent that there was a valid arbitration agreement in the said contract and that the Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. Incidentally it may be pointed out at this stage that no specific joint had been raised in the pleadings of the appellant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S. 33 or S. 32 of the Act. In fact the trial Judge has observed that it was not shown to him how the application was incompetent. Consistently with the findings recorded by him the learned trial Judge declared that there was a concluded contract between the parties under which the matter was duly referred to arbitration through an arbitration agreement clause in the contract. As a result of the declaration he held that there was a valid reference to arbitration between the parties. Consequently he granted a month's time to the arbitrators to make their award.
(3.)Thus decision was challenged of the appellant by its revision petition preferred in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The High Court has confirmed the finding of the trial court that there was a concluded contract which contained an arbitration, agreement. The question of jurisdiction under S. 33 of the Act was argued before the High Court and its attention was drawn to the conflict of judicial decisions on the point. The High Court, however, held that since the petition has been filed as a composite application under Ss. 28 and 33 it was open to the Court under S. 28 to enter upon the question of the existence or validity of the contract and so there was no substance in the point of jurisdiction raised by the appellant. In the result the appellants revision application was dismissed. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and on his behalf Mr. Din Dayal has raised the same two points for our decision. He contends that the High Court was in error in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's petition, and he argues that even if the point of jurisdiction raised by him fails it should be held that there was no concluded contract between the parties and so there was no scope or room or making any reference to arbitration. The first of these two contentions has been seriously pressed before us.
(2.)On these pleadings the learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues. He found that a concluded contract had been proved between the parties as alleged by the respondent that there was a valid arbitration agreement in the said contract and that the Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. Incidentally it may be pointed out at this stage that no specific joint had been raised in the pleadings of the appellant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S. 33 or S. 32 of the Act. In fact the trial Judge has observed that it was not shown to him how the application was incompetent. Consistently with the findings recorded by him the learned trial Judge declared that there was a concluded contract between the parties under which the matter was duly referred to arbitration through an arbitration agreement clause in the contract. As a result of the declaration he held that there was a valid reference to arbitration between the parties. Consequently he granted a month's time to the arbitrators to make their award.
(3.)Thus decision was challenged of the appellant by its revision petition preferred in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The High Court has confirmed the finding of the trial court that there was a concluded contract which contained an arbitration, agreement. The question of jurisdiction under S. 33 of the Act was argued before the High Court and its attention was drawn to the conflict of judicial decisions on the point. The High Court, however, held that since the petition has been filed as a composite application under Ss. 28 and 33 it was open to the Court under S. 28 to enter upon the question of the existence or validity of the contract and so there was no substance in the point of jurisdiction raised by the appellant. In the result the appellants revision application was dismissed. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and on his behalf Mr. Din Dayal has raised the same two points for our decision. He contends that the High Court was in error in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's petition, and he argues that even if the point of jurisdiction raised by him fails it should be held that there was no concluded contract between the parties and so there was no scope or room or making any reference to arbitration. The first of these two contentions has been seriously pressed before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.