STATE OF U P Vs. RAM NATH BANSAL
LAWS(ALL)-1965-7-15
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 23,1965

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM NATH BANSAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PEARELAL AND SONS E P PRIVATE LIMITED VS. V O MASHPRIBORINTORG [LAWS(DLH)-1978-11-7] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

D.S.Mathur, J. - (1.)1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by the State of Uttar Pradesh defendant against the order dated 24-9-1963 of the Additional Civil Judge of Agra allowing the appeal of Ram Nath Bansal plaintiff and thereby getting aside the order of the Munsif Khalilabad at Agra staying the hearing of the suit under Section 84 of the Arbitration Act.
(2.)THE plaintiff, Ram Nath Bansal, was given the contract of digging ridges after he and also the Conservator or Forest Land Management Circle, U. P. had executed agreements. Disputes arose with regard to the execution of works whereupon the plaintiff instituted the p resent suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh for the recovery of Rs. 3,023 with costs and pendente lite and future interest. Before filing me written statement the State moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act praying that the hearing of the suit be stayed as there existed a clause for arbitration, the plaintiff had not availed of this remedy and the defendant was throughout willing to such arbitration. THE application was allowed by the Munsif who stayed the hearing of the suit. Ram Nath Bansal went up in appeal before the District Judge and the learned Civil Judge hearing the appeal has set aside the Munsifs order holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement. THE learned Civil Judge directed the trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with the law.
The point for consideration is whether Clause 25 of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the conservator of Forest amounts to an arbitration agreement. If so, the present suit cannot proceed and it shall be necessary for the parties to move the Arbitrator for making an award. Clause 25 of the agreement runs as below: "Theka Key Arth Abhipravya Key Sambandh Men Emarat Ki Tayyari Key Sambandh Men Aur In Sharton Key Sambandh Men Jo Baten Paida Hon, Un Sabka Faisla Divisional Officer Karengen. Parantu Kewal Un Baton Ko Chorkar, Jahan Saf Saaf Kaha Gaya Hai Ki Unka Faisla Antim Hoga, Yadi Thekedar Aur Baton Key Faisley Say Ya Karrawai Sey Santusht Na Ho To Woh Conservator of Forest Land Management Circle Key Pas, Jinka Faisla Antim Hoga, Appeal Kar Sakta Hai."

(3.)THE above clause contemplates two classes of disputes--one in which the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer is final and the other consisting of other disputes in which the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer can be appealed before the Conservator of Forest and the order of the Conservator of Forest is final, meaning thereby binding on the parties. In this revision we are not concerned with disputes falling in the first category and hence it is not necessary to indicate whether the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer, not appealable to the Conservator of Forest, amounts to an award and with regard to such disputes there exists an arbitration agreement necessitating the parties to move the Arbitrator, and not institute a suit before the courts of law in the first instance,
;


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