UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus ARADHANA TRADING CO. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 01-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
ARADHANA TRADING CO. AND ORS. 
APRIL I, 2002. 
[B.N. KIRPAL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940-Sections 14(2), 17,28,39 and 41. 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908 : Order 9 Rule I 3 and Section I 04. 
Arbitration-Agreement between Union of India and a Company For 
supply of items to Railways at Asansol-Dispute-Appointment of Arbitrator 
A 
B 
c 
by High Court Order-Time extended by Calcutta High Court to give Award 
with consent of parties-Award filed in High Court-Despite notice of filing 
Union of India neither appearing nor filing objections-Award made Rule of D 
• 
Court-Application for reca/ling High Court's Order-Rejection of-Contention 
that Award should not have been filed in Calcutta High Court rejected--
Order rejecting application for recalling High Court Order held not an order 
refusing to set aside Award-Appeal against such an order-Maintainability 
ef 
E 
Appellant-Union of India entered into agreements with respondents for 
supply of certain items to the Railways viz. Chitranjan Locomotives situated 
at Asansol. Disputes having arisen regarding payment, the respondents filed 
""" 
writ petitions in the High Court of Calcutta and Arbitrators were appointed 
pursuant to orders passed by the High Court. Since the time to make Award F 
had expired, the High Court extended time with consent of parties including 
the appellant On 11.11.1997 the Arbitrators filed the Award in the Calcutta 
High Court Despite service of notice of filling of the Award upon appellants 
nobody appeared on their behalf nor any objections were preferred against 
the Award. On 27.1.1998 the High Court passed decree in terms of the Award G 
making the same Rule of Court On 24.2.1998 the appellant moved an 
application for recalling the order dated 27.1.1998 passed by the High Court, 
explaining its absence on the date of hearing and stating that on 29.9.1997 it 
had moved an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 
before the Assistant District Judge, Asanso~ praying for a direction to the H 
Arbitrators to file Awards in the Asansol Court, therefore, award could not 
847 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A be filed in the High Court. By its order dated 23.4.1998 the High court 
dismissed.the application on the ground tha~ no objections were filed against 
the award. Therefore, the Court had to pass the orders making the A ward 
Rule of the Court in accordance with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act It 
also held that Decree cannot be said to have been passed ex-parte as it was 
B with due notice to the appellant It further found that Award was rightly filed 
in High Court. The Division Belich dismissed the appeals preferred by 
appellant repelling the objections tha~ the High Court could not entertain the 
matter. It also held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Divi~ion 
Bench against the order of Single Judge of the High Court. Hence these 
appeals. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. No fault can be found with the finding of the High Court 
negating the plea raised by the appellant that Arbitrators should have filed 
D the Award in the Asansol Courts and not in the High Court of Calcutta. 
Calcutta. High Court exercises its original civil jurisdiction as well. The 
appellant had not come up with the case that there was any inherent lack of 
jurisdiction in the High Court of Calcutta to entertain such suit or 
proceedings. The appellant itself had submitted to the jurisdiction of the High 
Court while moving application for extension of time under Section 28 of the 
E Arbitration Act Despite service of notice, the appellant did not seem to have 
moved any application informing the High Court or the respondents that they 
had already moved an application before Assistant District Judge, Asansol 
for a direction to the ArbitratOrs to file the Award in that Court or indicating 
any reservation about filing of the A ward in the High Court. It has now here 
F been indicated by the appellant that the Court of Assistant District Judge, 
Asansol had ever issued any notice on the application filed by Union of India 
or any direction to the Arbitrators as prayed. The orders were passed by the 
High Court on 24.2.1997 and 28.7.1997 extending the time that is to say much 
before the appellant moved application in the Court of the Assistant District 
Judge, Asansol for a direction to the Arbitrator to file the Award in Asansol. 
G

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