2000(7) Supreme 722
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
A. Mohammad Yunus (Dead) by LRs. -Appellant
versus
Food Corporation of India & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4787 of 1990
Decided on 25-1-2000
ORDER
This appeal arises out of arbitration proceedings. Clause 19 of the Arbitration Agreement entered into between the parties reads thus.
"All disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever (except as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by the F.C.I.... It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by the F.C.I. as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all."
2. The admitted case of the parties is that no arbitrator was appointed by the Food Corporation of India. The terms of the contract clearly stipulated that in case there is no agreement on the appointment of the sole arbitrator then no person other than the person to be appointed by the F.C.I. can act as an arbitrator and where it is not possible to appoint such an arbitrator, then the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all.
3. The Award made by the Arbitrator [who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by Clause 19 (supra)] on 20th of March, 1982 was, however, made a Rule of the Court by learned Sub-Judge, Trivandrum on 24th June, 1982 and a decree in terms of the Award followed. An appeal against the Award filed by the respondent succeeded in the High Court when the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 13th February, 1987 held that no arbitrator could have been appointed in view of the specific terms of Clause 19 of the agreement.
4. Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on which learned counsel for the appellant relies is merely a machinery provision. The substantive rights of the parties are to be found in Section 8(1), Clauses (a) and (b). It is not disputed before us that the case of the appellants does not fall in any of the two clauses. Recourse to arbitration could not have been taken contrary to the agreed stipulation contained in Clause 19 of the agreement (supra). The Award made in this case was thus by a quorum-non-judis. That being the position, no fault can be found with the judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the award and the decree of the learned Sub-Judge, Trivandrum. This appeal, therefore, has no merit. It fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
A. Mohammad Yunus (Dead) by LRs. v. Food Corporation of India & Anr., 2000(7) Supreme 722 .
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.