JAGDISH CHANDER GUPTA versus KAJARIA TRADERS (INDIA) LTD.

Citation: [1964] 8 S.C.R. 50 · Decided: 29-04-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[rg64J 
IfJfU 
"such" may . as weU refer to the "income" in the opening 
CJ.T. 
sentence of sub-s. (3). The said rnb-section says that the 
~I h "· WanllJ incomes mentioned thereunder shall not be included in the 
• "°-
' total income, but the proviso lifts the ban and says that such 
Sublla Rao 1. 
incomes shall be included in the to:al income if the condi-
tions laid down are satisfied. 
We think that the expression 
usuch income" only means the income accruing or arising in 
favour of the trust. 
1964 
April, 29. 
The legal position may briefly be stated thus. 
Clause 
(i) of s. 4,(3) of the Act takes in every property or a frac-
tional part of it held in trust wholly for religious or charit-
able purposes. 
It also takes in :mch property held only in 
part for such purposes. 
Business is also property within the 
meaning of the said clause. Clause (b) of the proviso to 
s. 4(3)(i) applies only to a business not held in trust but 
carried on on behalf of religious or charitable institutions. 
For the foregoing reasons we hold that the High Court 
has co~ectly answered the question referred to it. 
In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with 
costs. 
One set of hearing fees. 
Appeal dismissed. 
JAGDISH CHANDER GUPTA 
v. 
KAJARIA TRADERS (INDIA) LTD. 
(K. N. 
WANCHOO, 
M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, 
K. 
C. 
DAS 
GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
hrbitration Act-Partnership agreement-Provision 
for 
referring 
to 
arbitration-Partnership not registered-Application 
in 
the High 
Court for appointment of arbitrator-If maintainable-Interpreta-
tion 
of statute-Ejusdem Generis--No1citur a 
sociis-Indiarc 
Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), •· 69-Arbitration Act, 1940 
(Act 10 of 1940), " 8(2). 
lbo respondent entered into a partnership agreement with tho appel-
lant. But this was not registered. There was an arbitration clauoe sti-
8 S.C.K 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
51 
pulatiog that in case of dispute the matter will be referred for arbitration 
in accordance \\ith Arbitration Act, 1940. Dispute having l\risen between 
the respondent and the appellant the former wrote to tho latter stating 
that the dispute be referred for arbitration and 
that the 
respondent 
has appointeil one K as the sole arbitrator. On the failure of the appellant 
to agree to this the respondent filed an application under s. 8(2) of the 
Indian Arbitration Act for the appointment of arbitrator. The applica-
tion was hearil by a Division Bench of the High Court before which the 
appellant contended that s. 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 
afforded a bar to tho petition because the partnership was not registered. 
One of the Judges upheld the contention while the other rejectell it and 
the matter was referred to another Judge who held that the application 
was competent. The present appeal was filed by special leave granted 
by this Court. 
HELD:-(i) That since the arbitration clause formed a part of the agree-
ment constituting the. partnership it is obvious that the proceeding which 
is before the Court is to enforce a right which arises from a contract. 
Whether one views the contract between the parties as a whole· or on• 
Tiews only the arbitration clause it is impossible to think that the. riaht 
to proceed to arbitration is not one of the rights which are founded OD 
the agreement of the parties. 
The words of s. 69(3) 
"a right arisina 
from a coiitract" are in either sense sufficient to 
cover 
tho present 
matters. 
(ii) Interpretation ejusdt:m ge11eris or nosc:itur a l'Ociis 
need 
not 
always be made when showing particular classes are followed by general 
words. Before ·the general wvrds can be so interpreted there- must bo 
a genus constituted or a category disclosed with reference" to which tho 
1eneral words can and are intende'd to be restricted. The expression 
"clairp. of set off" does not disclose a category or a genus. 
Set. offs are 
of two kinds legal and equitable and both are already comprehended 
and it is difficult to think of any right ""arising from a contract• which 
is of the same nature as a claim of set otl and can be raised bJ a 
4efendent in suit. 
Allen v. Emerson, (1944) I 
K.B. 362. referrell to. 
Hafiz Qamar Din v. Nur Din, A.I.R. 1936 Lah. 136, /Tabulal Dhaft 
Dhania v. Mis. Gautam & Co. A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 341, Kottama1u Sree-
mannarayanamurthy v. Chakka Arja11ad11, A.l.R. 1939 Mad. 145, Jarnal 
Y. Firm Umar Haji Karfm, l.L.R. 1943 Nag.- 540, and R,tm Lal Harnam 
Das v. B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.