STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus M/S. SAITH & SKELTON (P) LTD.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 28-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
M/S. SAITH & SKELTON (P) LTD. 
lan,uary 28, 1972 
233 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, I. D. DUA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
.Arbitration Act (10 of 1940), ss. 2(c) and 14(2)-Power of r.rbitrator 
to file •ward suo motu--Court in which award should be filed-Power of 
arbitrator to 'awapd interest prior to date of reference or aWard. 
Disputes having arisen between the ~ppellant and the respondent with 
reference to the pe'rformance of a contract which provided for arbitration, 
steps were taken to appoint arbitrators .and an umpire. 
The appellant 
filed a petition . ip the District Judge's Court, having jurisdiction over the 
matter, fOr settin(g aside the nominations. 
When the matter came up to 
this Court in appeal, this Court appointed a sole arbitrator v,ith consent 
of the panie•. · Thereafter in the presence of counsel for both panics 
this· Court gave .directions in the ~ppeal. that the arbitration records be 
sent to the sole arbitrator, and .later extended the time for making the 
award, and gave directions regarding the venue. The arbitrator gave his 
aWard, directing the payment of a certain sum by the appellant to the 
respondent with simple interest at 9% &-om a date anterior to the, refer-
ence, .41Dd 
file~. the award in this Court the next day. 
The respondent 
filed a petition for p-:tsSing a decree in terms of the a1,1.·ard but the appellant 
opposed the petition. 
On the queslions: (1) Whether the arbitrator had no pov-,.·cr suo n1oru 
to file his award; (2) Whether the aw~rd should not have been filed in 
this Court as it is not the Court contemplated by ss. 2(q) and 14(2) of 
the Arbitration Act, 1940; and (3) Whother the arbitrator had no juris· 
diction to '3Ward the interest from a date anterior to the date of a"rafd 
or reference, 
HELD: (I) There is nothing in s. 14(2) of the Act which precludes 
the arbitrator from filing the award suo 1110.qu and it is not cottect to 
•ay that the award should be filed only if the parties make a request to 
the arbitrator to file it, or make an appli~tion to the Court for that 
purpose. The arbitrator having filed the award the next day after making 
it, no question of limitation arises. 1239 G-H] 
Narayan Bhawu v. Dewaiibhawu, A.I.R. 1945 Nag. 117, approved. 
(2) The expresion 'Court' occurring in s. 14(2) of the Act will have 
to be understood in the context in which it occurs, beqause, the defini-
tion of the word in s. 2(c) applies only when there is nothing repugnant 
in the subject or context. The word 'Court' would include 'an appellate 
court' and the wdrd 'suit' would include 'appellate proceedings'. 
Merely 
because the order of this Court appointing the sole arbitrator stated 'the 
'lppeal is allowed' it is not as if this Court had lost 'all jurisdiction regard· 
ing the arbitration proceedings. 
The various directions given by this 
Court indicate that this Coun retaine~ full control over the arbitration 
prQCeedings. Therefore this Court is the Court under s. 14(2) where the 
arbitration award should be validly filed. [240 E·H; 241 B·Dl 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.Jt 
Ct. A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar & Ors. v. Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam 
Chettiar, [.1960] 2 S.C.R. 209, referred to. 
(3) In the present case, all the disputes including the claim for the 
rayment of interest had been referred to the arbit,rator. The contract does 
not provide that no interest w-:is payable on the amount that may be 
found due. 
Therefore the respondent was entitled, under s. 61 (2) of the 
Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to claim inte'rest from the date on which the 
price became due and payable. The arbitrator had found that the price 
had become payable from a date anterior to the date of the aw~. Thero-
iore, the award of interest from the anterior date was justified. The 
award of interest at 9% is also not exorbitant because the parties them· 
selves claimed interest at 12%. [245 At-OJ 
Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram, [1964} 3 S.C.R. 164 and Firm 
Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Indore, [1967} 1 
S.C.R. 105, followed. 
ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C. A. No. 136 Of 1971. 
Appeal by special leave from lhe judgment and order dated 
August 6, 1970 o( the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench 
in Civil Revision No, 415 of 196.9-
1. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondent 
No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivere.d by. 
Vaidialingam, J.-Civil Mi

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