PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA versus BURMAH SHELL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 21-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA 
A 
v. 
BURMAH SHELL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
AUGUST 21, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, I 972-Sections 60 and 93-Dispute 
between Cooperative Society and appe/lant-Appointment of arbitrator-Civil 
Court restraining arbitrator from proceeding ahead with arbitration C 
proceedings-Non-appearance of cooperative society before the arbitrator on 
the appointed date of hearing-Arbitrator passing ex-parte award in favour 
of appe/lant-Award cha/lenged-Sing/e Judge setting aside ex-parte award 
in view of restraint order of Civil Court-Division Bench holding that Civil 
Court not competent to entertain any civil suit which any authority under the 
Act competent to aqjudicate upon thus restraint order nu//ity-A/so arbitrator D 
could have ignored restraint order as not binding on him-On appeal held, 
in such cases person aggrieved should first approach Civil Court for 
adjudication upon the question of its own jurisdiction and then to vacate or 
reca/l its order if it is one which it did not have jurisdiction in Jaw to make-
Unti/ this is done the order of competent court to be obeyed-Thus ex-parte 
proceedings before arbitrator to be set aside and parties heard bi-parte. 
E 
Judgment/order-Binding nature of-Order of competent court-Remains 
binding, unless vacated or set aside-Cannot be ignored by assuming it to be 
void 
Dispute between appellant and respondent-society regarding F 
allotment of plot was referred for adjudication to an Arbitrator. 
Respondent-society challenged the appointment of an Arbitrator. Civil 
Court restrained the Arbitrator from going ahead with the arbitration 
proceedings. On the next date of hearing respondent-society did not appear 
before the Arbitrator. Arbitrator proceeded ex-parte and passed an award G 
in favour of appellant. Aggrieved, respondent-society filed an appeal 
against the award. Single Judge of High Court set aside the ex-parte award 
in view of the restraint order passed by Civil Court. On appeal, Division 
Bench held that Civil Court was not competent to entertain any civil suit 
which any authority under the Act was competent to adjudicate upon, and 
643 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A therefore, the restraint order passed by Civil Court, was a nullity and an 
order by coram non-judice. Also the arbitrator, when apprised of the 
restraint order could have ignored the order as not binding on him. Hence 
the present appeal. 
B 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Where exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is statutorily 
provided still on availability of requisite grounds the civil court can 
entertain a civil suit. Thus the holding of Division Bench of High Court 
that a civil court cannot under any circumstances entertain a civil suit in 
C respect of proceedings pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Society 
cannot be concurred with. Also the view that Registrar of Cooperative 
Society could have ignored the order of Civil Court as not binding on him 
in view of Sections 93(3), 93(1)(c) and 60 of the Act cannot be accepted. 
It will be a dangerous proposition to be laid down as one of law that any 
individual or authority can ignore the order of the civil court by assuming 
D authority upon itself to decide that the order of civil court is one by coram 
non-judice. The appropriate course in such case is for the person aggrieved 
G 
first to approach the civil court inviting its attention to the relevant 
provisions of law and call it upon to adjudicate upon the question of its 
own jurisdiction and to vacate or recall its order if it be one which it did 
E not have jurisdiction in law to make. So long as this is not done, the ord~r 
of competent court must be obeyed and respected by all concerned. A 
judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect entailing all 
consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial 
proceedings. Thus .the ex-parte proceedings before the arbitrator deserve 
to be set aside and the parties heard bi-parte. The then arbitrator having 
F expired, a new arbitrator be appointed who shall resume the proceedings 
from the date with which the predecessor arbitrator had proceeded ex-
parte against respondent No.I subject to the order which may be passed 
by Civil Court. (647-8-G] 
G 
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1969) SC 78, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5180 of 
2

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