1. Dispute over the existence of a concluded contract and the validity of an arbitration agreement — Petition filed under Sections 28 and 33, Arbitration Act, 1940. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 325
Supreme Court Of India
B.P.SINHA, C.J.I., P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Jawahar Lal Barman - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1961
Decided On : 09/25/1961
Advocates Appeared:
M/s. Din Dayal Sharma and N. N. Keswani, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. V. D. Mahajan and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
M/s. Din Dayal Sharma and N. N. Keswani, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. V. D. Mahajan and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
The court held that Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, implies inherent jurisdiction for courts to entertain applications from parties affirming the existence of an arbitration agreement. Additionally, a contract is concluded if the acceptance is absolute, treating security deposits as conditions subsequent.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 32 and 33 - Bar on suits for decision upon existence, effect or validity of arbitration agreement - Remedy for party affirming existence of agreement - Inherent jurisdiction of Court to entertain applications to avoid stalemate and prevent abuse of process - Where arbitration agreement is part of the main contract, a challenge to the contract is a challenge to the arbitration agreement. (Paras 6-12)
(B) Contract Act - Section 7 - Concluded contract - Acceptance of tender - Security deposit as condition subsequent vs. condition precedent - Construction of acceptance letter - If the letter states the contract is concluded, a requirement for security deposit, consistent with general conditions, does not make the contract conditional. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by a party seeking a declaration that a concluded contract existed containing a valid arbitration agreement and requesting an extension of time for the arbitrators to make an award. The opposing party challenged the jurisdiction of the court and contended that no concluded contract had been entered into, arguing that the requirement for a security deposit was a condition precedent to the formation of the contract.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while Section 33 specifically provides for parties challenging an agreement, Section 32's bar on suits implies a remedy via application for parties affirming the agreement. Regarding the contract, the acceptance letter, read as a whole, indicated the contract was concluded and the security deposit was a condition subsequent.
Issues: Whether a party affirming the existence of an arbitration agreement can apply to the court for a declaration of its existence under the Arbitration Act, and whether the requirement of a security deposit in an acceptance letter rendered the contract conditional.
Ratio Decidendi: To avoid an anomalous result where a party affirming an agreement has no remedy despite a bar on suits under Section 32, the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to entertain such applications. Furthermore, the intent of the parties and the overall language of the acceptance letter determine whether a condition is precedent or subsequent; a categorical statement that a contract is concluded overrides a prima facie conditional clause.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition by a party affirming an arbitration agreement and whether a concluded contract was legally entered into. (Para 3 , 15 )
3. Section 32 bars suits for arbitration agreement validity; to avoid stalemate, the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to entertain applications by parties affirming such agreements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. A party affirming the existence of an arbitration agreement may apply to the court under the implied jurisdiction of Section 32, as suits are barred. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 17 )
6. Can a party affirming the existence of an arbitration agreement apply to the court under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
No. Section 33 allows applications by persons desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an agreement or to determine its effect. A party affirming the existence cannot use Section 33 to obtain a decision that the agreement exists. (Para 8 )
7. What remedy is available to a party affirming an arbitration agreement when Section 32 bars a regular suit?
While Section 32 creates an absolute bar against suits, it implies a right to make an application under the court's powers (Section 31) to avoid an anomalous result where a party has no remedy to enforce their right. (Para 9 )
8. Can a court decide on the validity of the main contract in a petition concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement?
Yes. Where the challenge to the main contract is common to the challenge of the arbitration agreement, an incidental declaration regarding the main contract's validity does not change the essential character of the application. (Para 11 , 12 )
9. Does a clause in an acceptance letter making security deposit 'subject to' constitute a condition precedent, preventing a concluded contract?
Not necessarily. If the letter overall indicates the contract is concluded and general conditions treat security as a condition subsequent, the acceptance is absolute and unqualified under the Contract Act. (Para 15 , 16 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The principal point which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision relates to the construction of Ss. 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) (hereafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. The respondent, Union of India, filed a petition in the Court of the First Class Sub-Judge at Delhi against the appellant M/s- J. Burman and Co., through its proprietor Jawahar Lal Burman under Ss. 33 and 28 of the Act. The respondent alleged that a concluded contract had been entered into between the parties on August 31, 1949, for supply of 170 1/2 Cwt. of coconut oil by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent had advertised in the Indian Trade Journal for the said supply and the appellant had submitted its tender No. SM-1/104524. This tender was by the respondent which concluded a contract between the parties. The respondents case was that the said contract was governed by general conditions of contract Form W.S.B. 133. These conditions included an arbitration agreement, Disputes arose between the parties regarding the said contract, and so in pursuance of the arbitration agreement they were referred to the two arbitrators appointed by the parties. After the arbitration proceedings had gone on for a considerable time before the arbitrators the appellant objected to their jurisdiction to de with the disputes on the ground that there was no concluded contract between the parties. This plea made it necessary for the respondent to move the Court for a decision of the question about the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. It was on these allegations that the respondent in its petition claimed that it may be held that there was a concluded contract between the parties containing a valid arbitration agreement. The petition having been made under S. 28 along with S. 33 the respondent prayed that suitable extension of time be granted to the arbitrators for making the award. The appellant pleaded in defence that no concluded contract had been made between the parties and that there was no jurisdiction in, the Court to grant extension under S. 28. The other allegations made by the respondent in its petition were also traversed.
2. On these pleadings the learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues. He found that a concluded contract had been proved between the parties as alleged by the respondent that there was a valid arbitration agreement in the said contract and that the Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. Incidentally it may be pointed out at this stage that no specific joint had been raised in the pleadings of the appellant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S. 33 or S. 32 of the Act. In fact the trial Judge has observed that it was not shown to him how the application was incompetent. Consistently with the findings recorded by him the learned trial Judge declared that there was a concluded contract between the parties under which the matter was duly referred to arbitration through an arbitration agreement clause in the contract. As a result of the declaration he held that there was a valid reference to arbitration between the parties. Consequently he granted a months time to the arbitrators to make their award.
3. Thus decision was challenged of the appellant by its revision petition preferred in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The High Court has confirmed the finding of the trial court that there was a concluded contract which contained an arbitration, agreement. The question of jurisdiction under S. 33 of the Act was argued before the High Court and its attention was drawn to the conflict of judicial decisions on the point. The High Court, however, held that since the petition has been filed as a composite application under Ss. 28 and 33 it was open to the Court under S. 28 to enter upon the question of the existence or validity of the contract and so there was no substance in the point of jurisdiction
