M/S. ARVIND CONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LID. versus M/S KALINGA MINING CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. ARVIND CONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LID. 
v. 
MIS KALINGA MINING CORPORATION AND ORS. 
MAY 17, 2007 
B 
[TARUN CHA TIERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Partnership Act : 1832 ! 
Partnership firm-Re-registration-Effect of-Firm registered in 1949-
C Again registered comprising some of the original partners in 2005 with the 
same name-Earlier firm not dissolved-Held, registration of the firm in the 
same name again in 2005 does not affect the status of the firm. 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : 
D 
ss. 9 and 11 (4) (b)-lnterim order by District Judge u/s 9-Propriety 
of-Arbitration clause is an agency agreement-Agreement for a specific 
period having come to an end-Parties nominating their respective arbitrators 
but both the arbitrators so nominated failing to nominate presiding 
arbitrator-Application u/s 11 (4)(b) before Chief Justice of High Court for 
E appointing third arbitrator-Meanwhile on application, District Judge 
granting interim order to maintain status quo until arbitral tribunal takes 
the matter-High Court vacating the interim order-Held, Adequate grounds 
are not made out at this interlocutory stage for interfering with order of High 
Court and parties are left to have their disputes resolved in terms of arbitration 
agreement-As agreed by both the parties, sole arbitrator appointed to 
F decide the disputes between the parties-Except the question of maintainability 
of appeal filed by respondent before High Court on the pretext of re-
registration, since, the appeal has been held to be maintainable, all the other 
questions are left open for decision by the sole arbitrator. 
Respondent no. 1, a partnership firm was constituted in the year 1949 
G bearing registration no. 71/1949. It was reconstituted in subsequent years 
taking in some additional partners. On 14.3.1991 the respondent-firm entered 
into an agency agreement with the appellant, a private limited company, 
engaging the latter as a raising contractor in respect of the mines for which 
the former had obtained leases from the State Government. On 25.3.1991 the 
If 
180 
ARVINDCONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LTD. v. KALINGA MININGCORPN. 
181 
respondent firm executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the A 
~ 
appellant authorizing it to administer the mines and sell the iron ore extracted 
' 
therefrom. The agency agreement was to end on 31.3.2006. The appellant 
sought a further extension of the term but respondent no.1 was not willing 
for an extension. Disputes arose between the parties and by a letter dated 
9.12.2005 the appellant invoked the arbitration clause in the agency B 
agreement and nominated its arbitrator. The respondent firm registered itself 
again on 24.12.2005 bearing registration no. 595/2005. It, however, in turn 
also nominated an arbitrator. The arbitrators so nominated were tc name the 
. .J 
presiding arbitrator but since they failed to do so the appellant filed a petition 
under Section 11(4)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 
requesting the Chief Justice of the High Court to appoint the third arbitrator. c 
While the said application was pending, the appellant company also filed an 
application under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge for interim 
relief to permit it to continue to carry on the mining operations and to restrain 
the respondent from interfering with it. The District Judge directed status 
quo to be maintained until arbitral tribunal was constituted to adjudicate the D 
dispute between the parties. The respondent filed an appeal before the High 
Court which held that since primafacie the agreement between the parties 
j 
was not a specifically enforceable one in terms of the Specific Relief Act and 
since the terms of the agreement had expired, it was not appropriate to grant 
the interim order, and reversing the order of the District Judge, dismissed 
the application filed by the appellant-company. Aggrieved, the latter filed the E 
instant appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that it had entered into agreement 
with the firm bearing registration no. 71/1949, and since the appeal before 
the High Court was filed by the firm bearing registration no. 595/205, the 
same was not maintainable; that since the agreement entered with the appellant F 
< 
was, in the light of irrevocable Power of Attorney, co-terminus with the mining 
lease granted to the respondent firm, the same could not be terminated and 
would not come to an end by efflux time; and th

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