PRATAP SINGH versus PREETAM SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 19-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
I 
F 
G 
H 
776 
PRAJAP SINGH 
v. 
PRBETAM S.INGH & ANR. 
August 19, 1969 
[J:C. SHAH, ACTING CJ., V. RAMASWAMI, 
A.N. GROVER,JJ.} 
Arbitration Act, 1940-Stctlon 31(4)-Scopl of. 
Tbe appellant and the respondent were carrying on three busineMes at 
three diffe.rent places-Piptiya in Madhya Prades~. Bombay 110d Nagpur. Certain 
disputes relating to the partnertbip business were referred to an arbitrator. 
Having not been able to complete ti;le reference within four months, the arbitrator 
applied to the Subordinate Judge, Delhi for extension oftime. Overruling the 
objection as to his jurisdiction to e.ntertain the application the Subordinate Judge, 
Delhi granted extension of time for making the award. 
When the revision application against this order was pending before the 
High Court of Delhi, the respondent filed a suit in the court ot the Additional 
. District Judge in Madhya Pradesh for certain' reliefs. In the meantime the appel· 
lant applied under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit. The Addi-
tional District Judge appointed a receiver of the properties. In appeal the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court held that having regard to the proceedings pending in tl:ie 
High Court at Delhi it was a case in which, without adjudicating upon the juris-
diction of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi, the. application for appointment of the 
r receiver was maintainable. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that it was open to a Court to 
appoint a receiver of any other property in dispute or in relation to any procee-
dings before the arbitrator and by coofirment of that power, the power of the 
Civil Court in a suit t~ appoint a receiver·was excluded and, therefore, the only 
Court competent to entertain an application for. appointment of a receiver was 
the Subordinate Judge at Delhi and not the court of Additional District Judge in 
Madhya Pradesh. 
_ -nismissing the appeal, 
HELD : Normally for the, grant of interim relief in respect of the 
subject-matter of the dispute before an arbitrator the parties would have to resort _ 
to that court to which tho application for extension of time to make the award 
was made. But as the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi 
to entertain tbe applicati.on for exteQ$ion of time w~ in d_ispute the Civil Court 
~-
.) 
) 
PRATA.P\SINGH v. PREBTAM SINGH {J.C. Shah, Ag. C.J.) 
777 
which is seised of the suit was entitled to make appropriate orders for preserving 
the property which is the subject-matter of the-suit. [780 C-D] · 
Therefo're, the Civil Court in Madhya Pradesh was competent to appoint 
a receiver of the· property unfil the question about tbe jurisdiction of the Delhi 
Court under s. 31 (4) of the Arbitration Act to entertain appli!:;aiions arising out 
of the order of reference was finally determined. After the High Court of Delhi 
determined tbat question, tbe receiver appointed, in order to comply with the 
requirements of the statute, may be made subject to the jurisdiction of the Delhi 
Court if it be held that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appli· 
cation. [780· B) 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil AppeaL No. 2321 of -. 
C 
1 
1968. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dared 
the 1st November, 1968 of the-.Madhya Pradesh High Court,· Indore· 
Bench in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111 of 1967. . 
D 
C.K. Daphtary and B. Dutra for the Appellant. 
P.C. Khanna for Respondent No. 1. 
I 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.C. SHAH, AG. C.J: Pratap Singh, Preetam Singh and Diwan 
Singh are three brothers. Pratap Singh and Preetam Singh. carried 
on business in partnership, at three places-{ I)· Pipliya in Madhya 
Pradesh, in the·name of the Jaora Slate Pencil Works; {2) Bombay, 
F 
in the name of Partap Bro!hers; and (3) Nagpur, in the name of 
Nice Tiles and Marble, Nagpur: By an agreement dated Decem-
ber 18, \965 disputes between Pratap Singh and Preetam Singh 
relating to the partnership business were referred to the arbitration 
of their brother Diwan Singh. The arbitrator enter~d upon the 
reference, but be was unable to complete the reference within four 
G 
months .. Diwan Singh, l!pplied to the Court of the Subordinate 
Judge, Delhi,-under s. 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time. 
Preetam Singh objected to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge 
at Delhi to entertain the application. The Subordinate Judge _ 
overruled the objection and granted extension of time 

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