LexSUPREME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY versus M/S. H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SUPREME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
v.
M/S. H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.
MAY 9, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAJ"K, JJ.]
Arbitration Act, 1940 :
Ss. 2( a), 20, 60, 90, 93-Co-operative housing society-Agreement for
c COnStlUCtion of houses stipulating for reference of dispute to ariJitrato,-.l.ater
some more work awarded to contractor-Displlle regarding-Application u/s.
20 for producing the agreement and refening the dispute to arbitration-Ob-
jection by Society that matter being arbitrable u/s. 60, suit was not main-
tainable by virtue of s. 93 and even otlzetwise, in absence of a notice u/s. 90,
D
suit was liable to be dismissed-Held, bar of jurisdiction of Court, gets
attracted an1ong nienzbers, JJast 1nembers, between n1en1bers and Society etc.
as envisaged in clauses (a) to (d) of s. 60( 1)-Though application u/s. 20 is
treated as suit, it is procedural part-Mandatory requirement of s. 90 does not
get attracted to such proceedings--Contention that there was no arbitration
agreen1ent with respect to the construction in dispute not tenable, since
E jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute is founded upon an agreement entered with
consensus ad idem under which the parties exciuded established courts and
submitted to jurisdiction of arbitrat01-Tenns of agreement clearly indicate
that award of work during cow:re of execution is a part of agreement originally
entered into-Clause of agreement containing settlement of dispute by arbitra-
F tion is an arbitration agreement witllin the meaning of s. 2(a}-Application
u/s. 20 would be maintainable.
Kalyan People' Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dullhanbibi Aqua! Amin-
saheb Patil & Ors., AIR (1966) SC 1066; referred te.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 11037 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Delhi High Court
in F.A.0.(0S) No. 44 of 1996.
H
K. Madhava Reddy, U.U. Lalit and Satish Vig for the Petitioner.
658
-
SUPREME CO-OP. GRP. HSG. SOCY. '· H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.
659
The following Order of the Court was ddiv.ered :
A
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi made on 8.3.1996 in F.A.0. (OS) 44/96.
The petitioner had entered into a contract on September 4; J 986 with the
respondent with covenant contained therein as under :
.
11Antl \vherca~ lhe contractor has also agreed to execute the \Vork
of seven towers with 1.00'Y,; external works with the said contract
amount in the first instance and further work of the balance towers
that would be entrusted to him within 4 months of the dale of
a\vard of \Vork at the same per sq. n1. rates arrived at the above
Jump sum price for each to\ver and for the alternate specifications.
And whereas the employer has accepted the .offer of the contractor
the said contract an1ount subject to the tern1s and conditions set
forth herein and mutually agreed lo by both the parties".
Therein clause 32 relates lo settlement of dispute by arbitration which read
as under :
11J2-Settle111e11t of Disputes by Arbitration :
If any dispute, question of controversy, the settlement of which is
not herein specifically approved for, shall at any time arise between
the owner and the contractor relating to this contract or any clause
or thing contained or the construction thereof or any portion of
the same or the rights or duties or liabilities of either party, then
in every such cases the matter in dispute shall be referred lo the
Arbitration of the Hony. Director, O\Vner or his nominee and his
decision shall be final and binding on both the parties ............. "
B
c
D
E
F
In furtherance of the agreement, apart from 7 to\vers entrusted for
construction, the construction of 3 more towers was awarded on December
12, 1.988 and 4 more towers on March 12, 1990. Dispute and differences
had arisen in construction of the latter 7 towers. The respondent invoking G
clause 32 of the agreement filed application under Section 20 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, the 'Act') for calling upon the petitioner
to produce the agreement and to have the dispute referred to arbitration.
It \Vas nun1bered as a suit on the original side of the High Court. Therein,
the petitioner filed I.A. No. 7860 of 1994 in Suit No. 2760/93 under Order H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A 7, Rule 11, CPC to dismiss the suit. Two grounds were mainly pressed forExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.