LexJAMMU & KASHMIR STATE FOREST CORPORATION versus ABDUL KARIM WANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'l
.J ,
A
B
c
D
~AMMU & KASHMIR STATE FOREST CORPORATION
v.
ABDUL KARIM WAN!
MARCH 31, 1989
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND
LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.]
Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act 2002 (Smvt) Sections 8, 11,'
20and 41.
Arbitration Act, 1940--Sections 2(a), 18 and 20. Arbitration
clause in Contract-How to be construed.
Dispute between parties-Whether referable to arbitration or
not-Court to refrain from expressing opinion on merits of dispute.
Jurisdiction of Court to make interim order-Only 'for the
purpose' of arbitration proceedings-Not to frustrate the same.
The appellant, a Corporation was created under the Jammu &
Kashmir Forest Corporation Act, 1978. One of its main functions was y-
to undertake the removal and disposal of trees and exploitation of the
E
forest resources entrusted to it by the Government.
The Corporation took a decision for the extraction of timber of a
total volume of 10.08 lakh c. ft. which included the work offelling and
-
removal of trees. The respondent an approved contractor submitted his
tender and was granted the works contract initially with reference to 4
F
lakh c. ft., and subsequently he was entrusted with an additional work
for a further quantity of 2 lakh c. ft. The respondent completed the
entire work under the contract. Thereafter, he claimed that he was
entitled to the remaining volume of the work, namely, 4.08 lakh c.ft. as
per the procedure, practice, custom and usage extended to him. The
appellant denied any such practice, custom or assurance and said that a
G
decision had been taken not to work the area further till the entire
timber ·already extracted was removed to its destination. There was,
therefore, no question of entrusting the remaining work to anybody.
I
y
' '
Paragraph 15 of the Tender Notice stipulated that: "Extension for
. 4
the additional volume in the coupe will not be claimed as a matter of
H
right but may be considered by the Management where the achievement
380
J$>K STATE fO~!:;ST CO~PN. v. A-K. WAN!
381
is I 00 per ce11t," Tlw a_greemeq\ pnwide<I for arbitration which was
cont11inec;I in c!!IUSI' 4~. am! which. stipulate!!! ''t!l!lt 11ny dispute, differ-
ences 11r questi\lll l!lat ffi!!Y arise was to l>e referred for arbitration to the
Mllll!lllh•g DireCl\11' 11ftll.f Jammllf {lj: l\asllmir f11rest CorP1Jrati1Jn."
I
The resp1m<!e11t filed a11 !lpp,llcation 1m!ler secUons 8, 11 1111!1 20 of
--1
the J11mm11 1111<! l\ashmlr Arhitrnti1111 Act, ~002 (Smvt) i11 the' High
-'- Court for 11 d.irecli11q Ill the C11rpl!fatio11 lo file the 11greement and to
refer t11e dispute to ;m 1wldtrat11r. ·
A
B
Tile ttl11!1 C11ur-t deprernted. Ille ttltltmle 11£ the Corporation in not
11warl!l!1g tlle remainh1g w11rl\ 111 Ille resp11111!enl. It held that the trees i!l
queslioll hall already lllll'll m11rlletl !Ind. ll;il!, tl!erefore, t1.1 be felled 'one C
-+ l!i:iy or the 110•.er', and !!S. tile fW1tr11et11r's aqiievement was 300 per cent
tie lmd all Ille rlg!lt lt1 cl11im the remahting w11rk as provided in
paragrnpll IS !If the Ten!ler N11ti~11. 'file ftiglt Cil11rt also found that as
tller1l e;dstec;I II lllsPl!te t1111~!1ing the c1>ntracts executed between llte
parties, ii referred Ille mllt!el' 11nder cla11se 42 of t11e agreement to the
namell ;irbilrator, @mely, tile l\1anll~lng lHrector of tbe State Forest
D
Corpor11lio11,
Tiie ffigll Court went f11rtller alld by an h1terim order directed
that llte clllllractor be permilted !ti di! tile re111i1i11i11g work of extraction
(If ti111ber of sta11di11g morked tree~ 11111!. ti•• rntes be !letermined by the
arbitrator ;itler hearll!!l boll\ th@ parties p11rs11l111t Ill tile said interim
order.
"
Aggrieved by Ille afor<>sai<I l!fders qf the Higlt Court the appellant
appealeil to ttiis Cuurt by specl;tl leave,
On the questions! (l) whether !here was any subsisting arbitration
11gree111ent iq ·respefl of tile 111atters so11ght to be referred, and (ii)
wltettier the interj111 or<ler of the High C111Jrl directing the respondent to
do the r<0maiqiqg work was willlQl!t j11risdi~tion, and wheth.er the
resp!lmlel!t was •n!itled IP a!!Y ~0111pen~~t1011 for tbe work done.
-·
x
, ....
Allowing the aPpeal, till' C::<11ir1,"
HELP: (R,S, l'nlhlll\, C::J and L.M. Sharma, J. Majority-Per .
L.M. Slt11rm11, J,)
I, The cl1d111 rnlsed lly the r~~pundent in his application before
tile fligh Co11rt Is not ~over•d l!y !tie ~rhi!rnlio!l elapse llOd caExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.