MALLIKARJUN versus GULBARGA UNIVERSITY

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 05-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MALLJKARJUN 
v. 
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY 
NOVEMBER 5, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Arbitration : 
Arbitration agreement-Essential elements of-Work contract-Assigned 
C to contractor by University-(:lause in the agreement stipulating that in case 
of dispute between parties arising out of or relating to contract, decision of 
Superintending Engineer, P WD shall be final, conclusive and binding-Dispute 
between parties-Award given by Superintending Engineer made rule of court-
In execution proceedings objections filed by University uls 47 CPC contending 
D that the purported agreement on the basis whereof dispute between the parties 
was referred to Superintending Engineer was not an arbitration agreement 
and as such award made by him was not in terms of provisions of Arbitration 
Act, 1940-Held, the relevant clause should be construed to be an arbitration 
agreement-The agreement did contain an arbitration clause-Essential 
elements of arbitration agreement enumerated-Besides, before the arbitrator 
E parties proceeded on the basis that a reference of the disputes had been made 
to him in terms of the relevant clause of the contract which was construed to 
be an arbitration agreement-No objection was taken by University in this 
regard nor any objection filed by it in terms of s.34 of Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996-Arbitrator entered into the reference in view of the 
F reference made by the Registrar of the University on the claims and disputes 
arising out of contract-Executing court would proceed with the execution of 
the award 
Arbitration clause and clause for prevention of dispute--Distinguished 
G 
Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and Anr. v. Encon Builders 
H 
(/) (P) Ltd, (2003) 7 SCC 418, relied on. 
Bharat Bhushan Bapsal v. UP. Small Industries Corporation Ltd., 
Kanpur, [1999) 2 SCC 166, distinguished. 
272 
MALLIKARJUN v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY 
273 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2002. A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.200 I of the Kamataka High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 3719 of 2000. 
Bhaskar P. Gupta, G.V. Chandrashekhar for P.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
Basava Prabhu, S. Patil, Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, B. Subrahmanya 
Prasad, Mohd. Rishal S. for A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
B 
In response to the Notification issued by the Gulbarga University inviting C 
tenders for construction of an Indoor Stadium, the appellant herein submitted 
his tender. His tender was accepted and on 21st May, 1993, an agreement 
was executed between the appellant and the respondent-University in 
connection with the work to be carried out by the appellant. The estimated 
cost of construction for the work order issued to the appellant was for Rs. 
91,88,909. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the work order, the appellant D 
completed the construction. Certain disputes arose in relation where to the 
appellant herein invoked the arbitration clause. It is not in dispute that the 
Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga, ex-officio, was 
named to decide such disputes. Before the Arbitrator, the parties filed their 
claims and counter claims. The University also filed certain counter claims. E 
After hearing the parties, the Superintending Engineer, Gulbarga Circle, 
Gulbarga, who acted as an Arbitrator, gave the Award. However, no copy of 
the Award was furnished to the appellant as a result of which the appellant 
filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ 
of mandamus directing the Arbitrator to deliver a certified copy of the Award F 
given by him. In compliance of the directions of the High Court, the Arbitrator 
sent a certified copy of the Award dated 30th July, 1999. After the receipt 
of the certified copy of the Award, the appellant put the Award for execution 
before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. The Gulbarga 
University filed an objection in the execution petition filed by the appellant 
purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, G 
the Executing Court rejected the said objection on 19th October, 2000. 
Aggrieved, the Gulbarga University filed a Civil Revision Petition No. 3719 
of 2000 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the 
High Court of Kamataka. 
In the said Civil Revision Petition a plea was raised that the purported H 
274 
SUPREME

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