IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran. & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
J. Kodanda Rami Reddy ... Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1401-1405 OF 2002
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Decided on : November 11, 2010.
(2001) 10 SCC 30 – Relied upon
(1999) 9 SCC 571; (1999) 9 SCC 572; (1999) 9 SCC 568 – Referred
(b) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 2(j) and 3 – Respondent not challenging order dated 25.3.1991 rejecting challenge to existence of arbitration agreement and appointing arbitrator – Participating in the arbitration proceedings – Order attaining finality – Challenged on 17. 4.1993 on ground of non-existence of arbitration agreement – Not permissible. (Para 14)
(2003) 12 SCC 474; CA No. 1087-1088 of 2008 – Relied upon
(2001) 10 SCC 30 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Contract between the parties was accepted on 31.3.1987 and agreement therefor was executed on 22.6.1987. Govt. order clarified on 1.6.1987 that claims over and above 50000/- will be decided by civil court and not by arbitration.
Civil Court held that the contact was concluded before the clarificatory order which was prospective. Hence the order was not applicable to appellant’s claims. Therefore the court appointed a sole arbitrator u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of the claims.
This order was not challenged.
The arbitrator made the award.
The award was made a rule of the court and accordingly decree was passed.
The first respondent filed an appeal and a revision against the order dated 8.4.1993. CMA No. 1251/1993 was filed challenging the dismissal of its application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. CRP No. 4055/1993 was filed challenging the direction that a decree be made in terms of the award under Section 14(2) of the Act. Along with the said appeal and revision, it filed another revision petition (CRP No. 134/1995) on 14.7.1993 challenging belatedly the order dated 25.3.1991 made in OP No. 62/1990 under Section 8(2) of the Act appointing the arbitrator.
The High Court allowed CMA No. 1251 of 1993 filed against the dismissal of the application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act and CRP No. 4055/1993 filed against the order making the award a rule of the court and permitted the appellant to convert OP No.62/1990 filed under Section 8 of the Act into a regular civil suit by carrying out necessary amendments and by payment of necessary court fee.
The appellant filed two petitions for reviewing the order allowing CMA 1251/1993 and CRP 4055/1993 which were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result:
Appeal allowed with directions.
JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran J.
1. The first respondent (State of A.P.) entered into an agreement dated 22.6.1987 in regard to execution of the work "Ongole Water Supply Improvement Scheme with NS canals as a source" in pursuance of acceptance of appellant's tender on 31.3.1987.
2. By GOM No. 430 dated 24.10.1983, the first respondent issued the following revised procedure in regard to arbitration introduced by GOM dated 31.7.1975. The relevant portions of the revised procedure (paras 2, 3 & 4) are extracted below:
GOM No. 430 [Irrigation (IRA V) Dept, dated 24.10.1983"
xxxxx
2. The question of revising the above procedure has been receiving the attention of government for some time past.
3. Claims means all claims in the contract.
4. The orders referred to in paras 2 and 3 above shall be applicable to all the agreements entered into by Govt. from the date of issue of this order and will be applicable to all the Engineering Departments, in the State Govt. referred to para (6)."
xxxxxxxxxxx
The above GOM dated 24.10.1983 was revised by GOM No.160 dated 1.6.1987 as follows:
"ORDER
Govt., after careful consideration of various aspects, issued orders in para (2) of the G.O. read above prescribing the revised procedure for arbitration.
2. It has come to the notice of the Govt., that some of the contractors are approaching Courts to decide the claims above Rs. 50,000/- under the provisions of the Arbitration Act taking advantage of para 2(3) of the G.O. read above. The intention of the Govt. incorporating the above provision is to dispense with the Arbitration proceedings in respect of claims above Rs. 50,000/- and leave the parties to have their remedy in Civil Court. As some of the contractors have misconstrued that the claims above Rs. 50,000/- have to be decided under the Arbitration Act and not under ordinary Law in a regular civil Court, the Govt., direct that the following amendments to G.O.MS. No. 430, I(Irr.V) Deptt., dated 24-10-1983 be issued by way of clarification :-
(i) Item (3) of para (2) may be deleted.
(ii) Substitute para (3) by the following.
"All claims above Rs. 50,000/- shall be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a regular suit."
(iii) Para 3 to 7 are renumbered as para 4 to 8."
3. By letter dated 15.2.1990 the appellant lodged fourteen claims (of which claims 12, 13 and 14 related to pre-reference, pendente lite and future interest respectively) in regard to the said work, with the first respondent and demanded payment. As the first respondent did not settle the claims, the appellant filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, under Clause 73 of the A.P. Standard Specifications, requesting the said court to act as the arbitrator and settle the claims, in terms of the provision for arbitration, contained in the contract dated 22.6.1987. This was on the assumption that Item (3) of para 2 of GOM dated 24.10.1983 required all claims above Rs.50,000/- to be decided by arbitration, the named Arbitrator being `the court of competent jurisdiction'. The Sub-ordinate Judge, by order dated 17.4.1990, held that he could not act as an arbitrator. Thereafter, the appellant issued a notice dated 6.6.1990, under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (`Act' for short) seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration and furnished a panel of three names with a request to the State Government to concur in the appointment of any one from that Panel as sole arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes raised in his claim letter dated 15.2.1990. As there was no response, appellant filed OP No. 62/1990 under Section 8 of the Act in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Nellore, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator from out of the panel of three names suggested by him, to decide the disputes arising out of agreement dated 22.6.1987.
4. The first respondent filed a counter to the said application disputing the claims and contending that as per the terms of GOM dated 24.10.1983 as clarified by the GOM dated 1.6.1987,
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.