LexVAIDYA HARISHANKAR LAXMIRAM RAJYAGURU OF RAJKOT versus PRATAPRAY HARISHANKAR RAJYAGURU OF RAJKOT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B . VAIDYA HARISHANKAR LAXMIRAM RAJY AGURU OF RAJKOT v. PRATAPRAY HARISHANKAR RAJYAGURU OF RAJKOT APRIL 13, 1988 ISABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 2, 14, 17, 30 and 33-Award- Main objection-No written agreement signed by both parties to refer the matter to arbitration-Conduct of parties-Whether can be cons- C trued as proper arbitration agreement-Whether civil court has jurisdic- ~ tion to take cognizance of award. r Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 9---Award under Arbitra- tion Act-Cognizance of-Civil Court-Whether has jurisdiction. D The Petitioner and the respondent-father and son respectively referred certain disputes, which arose between them to the Arbitrator, who made the award. The award, duly signed by the parties and the Arbitrator, contained an endorsement to the effect that the award was agreed to and binding upon both the parties. E The respondent filed an application, which was later converted F G into special civil suit, for filing of the award, and sought a judgment in terms of the award under s. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Conse- quent npon the filing of the award, notice was issued to the petitioner, who filed objections. The trial court rejected the objections and passed decree in terms of the award. The petitioner preferred a first appeal against the aforesaid decree and also filed a revision application, but later withdrew them in pursuance of an agreement reached between the parties on August 14, 1978, reaffirming the appointment of the arbitrator and the award made by him and the trial court judgment became final. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a snit for setting aside the decree passed by the trial court which was dismissed. The revision/appeal against the aforesaid decision was withdrawn. During the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed a civil revi- H sion application, which was summarily rejected. The High Court held 534 - - • l V.H.L. RAJYAGURU v. P.H. RAJYAGURU 535 that the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the award and the revision before it suffered from res judicata. Hence the Special Leave Petition to this Court. A The main objection to the award was that there was no written agreement signed by both the parties to refer the disputes to arbitra- tion. It was aiso contended that the previous proceedings were without B jnrisdiction. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, HELD: 1.1 It is clear from the conduct of the parties that there was a proper arbitration agreement in terms of s. 2(a) of the Arbitra- tion Act, 1940. By signing the award it could be said that the parties had agreed to refer the disputes in writing to the arbitration of the named arbitrator. This agreement was done twice, firstly by signing an endorsement below the award and secondly, by entering into an agree- ment in the form ofa Jetter dated 14th August, 1978. [538E] 1.2 Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 provides that the Courts shall, subject to the provisions contained in the Code, have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. [539B I c D In the instant case there was DO such express or implied provision E nor any inability of the Judge concerned. The Civil Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the award under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. [538G I The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the application of the petitioner. [539E I F Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 11 I.A. 237; Seth Hira Lal Patni v. Shri Kali Nath, [1962] 2 SCR 747; Vasudev Dhan- jibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others, I 1971] 1 SCR 66; M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation v. M/s. Rattan Singh and Sons, [1982] l SCR 842; Prasun Roy v. The Calcutta Metropolitan Development G Authority and another, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 205 and Chowdhri Murtaza Hossein v. Mst. Bibi Bechunnissa, [1876] 3 Indian Appeal 209 at 220, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4783 of 1988. H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R. '( A From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.88 of the High Court of Gujarat in Civil Rev. Appln. No. 1737 of 1982. S.K. Dholakia, D.L. Kothari, R.C. Bhatia and P.C. Kapur for the Petitioners. B The.Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,.__ SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave to a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.