UNION OF INDIA versus R. B. CH RAGHUNATH SINGH & CO.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 27-07-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

128 
A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
R. B. CH RAGHUNATH SINGH & CO. 
July 27, 1979 
' 
B 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.) 
Arbitration ~4ct, 1940, Section 8(1)(b) applicability of-Atbitration agree-
ment specifies two names of arbitrators by designation-One such designated post 
~ 
c 
abolished and the second nan1cd officer refuses ta act-Whether a Court can 
(lppoint another arbitrator. 
D.isruissjng the appeals by certific21te, th'e Court 
HELD : 1. The Court had no power to supply the vacancy under section. 
8 (1) (b) of the Arbitration Act only if the arbitration agreement did show 
that the rarties did not intend to supply the vacancy. 
The words in sr.;:ction 
8 ( 1) (b) arc these : "and arbitration agreemeint does not show that it Yl&S 
intended that the vacancy should not be supplied". If no such intention could 
be culled out from the arbitration clause, the Court could supply the vacancy. 
D 
[129 D-EJ. 
Mjs. Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of India and Anr., [1971] 2 
S.C.R. 564; affirmed. 
Bada1n Satyanarayananiurthi v. Badarn Vrenkatara1nanamurthi, A.1.R. 
1948-
Madras 312; distinguished. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2472-2473 
of 1969. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 26-4-1966 of the Allahabad 
High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 447 /61 and 476/60. 
R. N. ~achthey, R. B. Datar, Girish Chandra and Miss A. 
F 
Subhashini for the Appellant. 
R. K. Garg for the Respondent. 
Th·~ Order of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J. These two appeals by certificate arise out of the 
same proceedings between the parties. The respondent company 
G 
applied to the Trial Court for the filing of the Arbitration agreement 
under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the 
Act and for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 
8. 
The 
applications were allowed. 
An Arbitrator was appointed. The Union 
of India took the matter in appeals to the Allahabad High Court. 
The High Court has dismissed the appeal arising out of the order of 
H 
the Trial Court under Section 20 of the Act and has treated the appeal 
arising out of Section 8 order as a revision and dismissed the samo· 
also. The Union of India has come to this Court. 
l ' 
' ' 
• -
> 
J 
UNION v. RAGllUNATH SINGH & co. (Untwalia, J.) 
129 
The decisions of the courts below in regard to Section 20 matM 
is at an e"nd now. It was denied on behalf of the appellant that 
there was any Arbitration agreement. 
The findings of the court below 
in this regard could not be assailed at all. 
The Arbitration clause in the contract between the parties ran as 
follows 
n. 
"All disputes or differences arising between the parties or 
their representatives and the Controller of Rationing Delhi 
at any time hereafter and of whatever nature arising out of 
or in respect of the contract shall be refurred for arbitration 
to the Chief Commissioner /Director of Storage, Ministry of 
Food, Government of India, and his decision shall be final 
and bi"nding." 
The post of Director of Storage, Ministry of Food, Gowrnment 
of India was abolished and no person holding that post was available 
for arbitration for the purpose of the arbitration clause aforesaid. 
The Chief Commissioner, however, was available but he refused to 
act. 
That led the respondent company to apply to the court under 
Section 8 of the Act for appointment of a'nother Arbitrator. 
The 
argumerrt put forward on behalf of the appellant is that when there 
. was a named Arbitrator even thongh he was named by office, it was 
not open to the court to supply the vacancy in his place under Section 
S(l)(b) of the Act. 
We did not find any substa"nce in this argument. 
The court had no powzr to supply the vacancy under Section 8(1) (b) 
only if the arbitration agreement did show that the parties did not 
intend to supply the vacancy. 
If no such intention could be culled 
out from the arbitration clause, the court could supply the vaca"ncy. 
There is a direct decision of this Court in M/s . . Prabhat 
General 
Agencies etc. v. Union of llldia & Another.(') 
Mr. R. B. Datar, counsel for the appellant placed the 
reliance 
upon the Full Bench Decision of Madras High Court in Badam 
Satayanarayanamurthi v. Badam Venkataramanamurthi & Ors.('), 
in support of his submission that no other Arbitrator could 
be appointed 
by 
the 
court 
under 
Section 8 of 
the 
Ad 
when tho Arbitrator named in the agreement refused to act. In 
our opinion while considering the provisions of SectiO"n 8 (

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