LexGURU NANAK FOUNDATION versus RATTAN SINGH & SONS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G H 842 GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH & SONS September 29, 1981 [D.A. DESAI AND A.P. SEN, JJ.] Jurisdiction of the competent court, when the Supreme Court is seisin of the proceedings, to entertain the Award-Scope of sections 2 (c}, 14 (2), 31 (4) and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Disputes having arisen between the parties to a building contract dated 4th April, 1972, an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in terms of clause 47 of the Arbitration Agreement, numbered as Suit No. 400(A) of 1974 was filed in the Delhi High Court. By its order dated August 14, 1974, the High Court appointed the 2nd Respondent Sri M. C. Nanda, retited Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. as the sole arbitrator. When the reference was pending, a petition number O.M.P. 133/1969 was moved by the appellant, under sections 5 and 11 of the Act, for the removal of the arbitrator and appointment of another in his place. The petition was dismissed, but in the appeal by special leave (Civil Appeal No. 17/1977) the Supreme Court made an order dated January 5, 1977, wherein by consent of parties 3rd respondent Sri O. P. Mallick, retired Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D., was appointed as the sole arbitrator. Since the 3rd respon- dent after entering into arbitration directed the parties to file fresh pleadings indi- cating that he desired to commence the arbitration proceediog afresh, another C.M.P. No.1088/77 "'as filed in the Supreme Court whereupon suitable directiona were given to proceed from the stage at which Sri Nanda left. A further appli- cation No. 526(A)/77 was moved, this time before the High Court for consider- ing the counter claim but it was dismissed as the first respondent who did ques- tion the jurisdictional aspect earlier, agreed to the issue being included in the reference. Thereafter, the arbitrator made an Award on November 11, 1977. The Ist respondent by his letter datea November 17, 1977, requested the 3rd res- pondent arbitrator to file or cause to be filed the award along with pleadings and documents before the Supreme Court. The 3rd responGent acting on the advice tendered by an officer of the Supreme Court filed the award in the Delhi High Court and informed the par~ ties. The 1st respondent moved C.M.P. No. 14079 of 1977 in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the award has to be filed in the Supreme Court in view of provisions contained in section 14 (2) read \Vith section 31 (4) of the Act and for a direction that the award be collected from Delhi High Court and be filed before the Supreme Court and notice of the filing of the award b~ issued to the parties. • I • GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH 843 The appellant filed a counter affidavit and contested the petition inter alia A contending that Delhi High Court would be the court within the meaning of section 14 (2) in which award ought to have been and has rightly been filed. It was contended that if the Court withdrew the proceedings to itself, the appellant would be denied the valuable right of appeal under the letters patent and a fur- ther appeal to the Suprem~ Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Allowing the C.M.P. No. 14079 of 1977, the Court, B HELD 1. The Supreme Court is the court having exclusive jurisdiction wherein the Award dated November ll, 1977 should be filed. [857 CJ 1 : 1. On a pure grammatical construction as well as taking harmonious and overall view of the various provisions contained in the Act it is crystal clear that ordinarily that court will have jurisdiction to deal with the questions arising under the Act, except the one in Chapter IV, in which a suit with regard to the dispute involved in the arbitration would' be required to be filed under the pro- visions of the Code of Civ ii Procedure. However, where an application is made in any reference to a court competent to entertain it, that court alone will have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall have to be made in that court alone and in no other court. [852 G-H, 853 A-B] l : 2. The expression "court" as defined in section 2(c) will have to be adhered to unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context in which it is used. The expression i"court" as used in section 21 of the Act includes the "appellate court" because appellate proceedings are generally recognised as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.