Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
Food Corporation of India, represented by Senior Regional Manager Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
B.Chittibubu - Respondent
Decided On : 10-25-82
ARBITRATION - AGREEMENT - CONSTRUCTION - EXCEPTIONS - DEMURRAGE - LIABILITY - REGIONAL MANAGER - ARBITRATOR - REFERENCE - SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE - DISCRETION OF COURT - SECTION 20(4) OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1940.
Fact of the Case:
The Food Corporation of India (FCI) entered into an agreement with various contractors for the transportation of food grains. Disputes arose between the parties, including a dispute over demurrage charges imposed on the contractors for delays in loading and unloading. The contractors sought to refer the disputes to arbitration under Clause 19 of the agreement, which provided for arbitration of all disputes arising out of the agreement. The FCI contended that the dispute over demurrage was excluded from the arbitration clause by Clauses 12(a) and 21, which provided that the Regional Manager would decide disputes relating to demurrage and wharfage.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Clauses 12(a) and 21 did not operate as an exception to the general rule of arbitration under Clause 19. The court found that these clauses were intended to prevent disputes from arising rather than to settle disputes, and that they did not constitute sub-arbitration clauses. The court also held that the dispute over demurrage was not within the contemplation of Clauses 12(a) and 21, as it related to the method of transport and the variation of the terms of the contract.
Issues: 1. Whether Clauses 12(a) and 21 of the agreement excluded the dispute over demurrage from the arbitration clause in Clause 19? 2. Whether the Regional Manager was constituted as an arbitrator under Clauses 12(a) and 21? 3. Whether the court had sufficient cause to order the filing of the arbitration agreement and make a reference to arbitration under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Clauses 12(a) and 21 as clauses intended to prevent disputes from arising rather than to settle disputes. The court found that these clauses did not constitute sub-arbitration clauses, as they did not provide for the appointment of an arbitrator or the settlement of disputes through arbitration. 2. The court held that the Regional Manager was not constituted as an arbitrator under Clauses 12(a) and 21. The court found that these clauses were intended to expedite the contracting obligations and to prevent disputes, rather than to settle disputes through arbitration. 3. The court held that the court below had sufficient cause to order the filing of the arbitration agreement and make a reference to arbitration under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The court considered the special circumstances of the case, including the fact that the FCI had suffered a number of decrees in similar cases where demurrage claims were construed as covered by the general arbitration clause.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the FCI, upholding the judgment and decree of the lower court. The court also extended the time for the appointment of an arbitrator by three months.
( 1 ) THIS batch of Miscellaneous appeals arise out of applications filed under Sec 20 of the Indian Arbitration act seeking direction from the civil court against the Food Corporation of india directing the Corporation to file the arbitration agreement dated 10-1-81 and to make a reference to the arbitrator as provided under the said agreement. The suits were decreed as prayed for. The Corporation filed the above appeals questioning the Judgment and decree of the Civil Court.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the corporation raised two questions and both of them rest on the contruction of the arbitration agreement dated 10-1-81 thouoh the agreement in these suits are entered on different dates the terms of agreements are identical as the corporation entered into those agreements with the parties with the same set of terms in all these cases and hence it is enough if we state facts in one case. The piaintifs case is that they are contracting parties with the corporation entrusted with the handling of transport contact work transporting the goods from the Corporation depot to the railway station and also godowns of the corporation. In C. M. A. No. 565/82 it was stated that the contract was entered into on 10-1-81 but within three months i. e. in April 1981 the corporation has changed the mode of transporting the food grains into what is called Jumbo rakes, thus resulting in loading and unloading of thousands of bags in a short time of less than 10 hours and each jumbo rake comprises of 50 to 75 units of 300 to 400 bags per unit and the said system has become unmanageable to clear the goods and the plaintiffs have no control over the departmental labour and even the railway staft felt difficult to handle the Jumbo rakes at the platform as there is neither covered space nor levelled ground for dumping and consequent upon this delay penalty is imposed for no fault of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs cannot be made liable for the delay in operation as it was the defendant who introduced this jumbo rakes resulting in demurrage, as such the demand to pay Rs. 1,03,687-80 ps. towards demurrage and wharfages paid by the Corporation to the Railways is illegal. The plaintiffs sought reference to the Arbitrator under the relevant Clauses 19 of the said agreement dated 10-1-1981. Besides this dispute there were other disputes also to be referred to the Arbitrator.
( 3 ) THE defendant-Corporation contested the proceedings on the ground that this question of demurrage cannot be subject matter of arbitration as clause 12 (a) and clause 21 excludes from the purview of the arbitration clause this dispute relating to demurrage as suc,h. the dispute shall be determined by the Regional Manager. The trial court following the unreported judgment in C M A No. 462/76 dated 23-11-1977 held that clause 19 relating to Arbitration clause is comprehensive enough to cover all disputes arising out of the contract and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals raised two contentions: firstly the request for the arbitration is premature as it can be made only within one year of the date of the completion (expiry of the period) of the contract or from the date of the termination of the contract. Secondly, clause 12 (a) and clause 21 clearly exclude from the purview of the Arbitration clause 19, the dispute relating to demurrage and consequently the requisition for reference so far it relates to demurrage is in-competent.
( 5 ) SO far as the first question is concerned it is not raised before the court below and the second question was raised only in first two cases. But in view of the legal submission we have to examine both the questions. In respect of both the questions it is necessary to notice clearly the terms of clauses 19, 12 and 21. "xix. Arbitration: All disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement what-so-ever (except as to any
AI
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.