LexUTKAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION versus CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UTKAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. CENTRAL COAL .. FIELDS LTD' .. JANUARY 20, 1999 B [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.) Arbitration Act, 1940 : Section 8. Arbitrato1'-Appointme11t of-Limitation--Reckoni11g of c Limitation Act, 1963 : Article 137-Applicability of Contract between appella11t-Corporatio11 and respondent 011 7.9.1974-Contract operative till 22.8. 75-Dispute between parties-Notice for appoi11tme11t of Arbitrator under Section 8 given by appellant 011 D 12.9.1976--Respo11de11t gave no response to the appellant-011 22.12.1977 appellant filed 011 application under Section 8 before Calcutta High Court-As the High Court lacked jurisdiction it gave direction to file the application before appropriate Court-Thereafter application filed before Sub- ordinate Judge, Ranchi 011 9.8.1978 which appointed Arbitrator--On E respondent's application i11 Revision High Court held application for appoint- ment of Arbitrator was barred by /imitation--Appeal before Supreme Court-Held High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration- Act was barred by /imita- tiorr--Requireme11ts of Section 8 Discussed. F Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. DDA, [1988] 2 SCC 338, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1215 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.94 of the Patna High Court G in Civil Revision Application No. 116/80. Arvind Kumar and Laxmi Arvind for the Appellant. Anip Sachthey for the Respondent. H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 166 -__,__ ._.,. )'. - ~ - UTKALCOMMERCIALCORPN. v. CEN1RALCOALF1ELDSLID. 167 The only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is A whether the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator was barred by limitation. A few dates may be noted in this connection. The term 'respondent' occurring hereinafter applies also to predecessors-in-interest of the respondent. On 7th September, 1974 the appellant entered into a contract, with the respondent under which the appellant agreed to supply Allumina Ferric of I.CJ. specification to the respondent. The contract was operative till 22.8.1975. On account of certain disputes and differences which arose between the parties the appellant, on 12.9.1976, gave a notice to the respondent. The notice is not on the record of the proceedings. From the judgment of the High Court which refers to this notice, it seems that under that notice, the appellant stated that huge amounts were due to it under the said contract and it appointed one Sohan Lal Saraf,. Barrister-at-Law as its Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to concur in that appoint- ment. No response was given to the notice:. Thereafter negotiations seem to have taken place between the parties • B c D for settlement of the disputes. Ultimately since the negotiations did not fructify, the appellant on 22.12.1977 filed an application before the Calcutta High Court under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The Calcutta High Court by its. judgment and order dated 26.4.1978 held that it had no E jurisdiction to entertain the application and directed the appellant to file an application before the appropriate Court. Accordingly on 9.8.1978 the appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act before the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. Its application was allowed on 18.9.1979 and the Court appointed one A.N. Singh, Retired District & Sessions F Judge to act as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has given a reasoned award dated 16.6.1980. The award is for a small amount of Rs. 41,342 with interest. And we are surprised at the costly litigation indulged in by the respondent for this small amount. Be that as it may, the respondent had filed a revision before the G High Court at Ranchi from the order of the Subordinate Judge granting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court has, by the impugned order, held that the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation. Hence no Arbitrator could have been appointed. In the present appeal we have to . H 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A consider whether the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation. • B c D ·The relevant Article of the limitation Act is kticle 137 which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.