SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Pat) 195

PATNA HIGH COURT
B.N.Rai and S.C.Prasad JJ.
Govt.Of India
Versus
Jamunadhar Rungta
Appeal from Original Decree No. 254 of 1951 ; 307 of 1951 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 17, 1958

Headnote:

Suit for recovery of amount due under contract - Arbitration award - Validity - Legality - Maintainability of suit - Applicability of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 entered into an oral contract for milling of paddy into rice. Defendant No. 1 was an agent of the Government of India for the purpose of purchasing paddy in Nepal territory. Plaintiffs supplied paddy to defendant No. 1 for milling. Defendant No. 1 failed to make payment to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sent a representation to the Government of India, which directed defendant No. 1 to pay their dues. However, defendant No. 1 refused to make any payment. The Regional Grain Supply Officer, Government of Bihar, defendant No. 2, arbitrated between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and gave an award. Plaintiffs challenged the legality and validity of the award. They filed a suit for recovery of the amount due under the contract.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the arbitration award was valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The court also held that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.

Issues: 1. Whether the arbitration award was valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the suit was maintainable in view of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the arbitration award was valid and binding on the plaintiffs because: * The reference to arbitration was made in writing and the parties had agreed to the reference. * The arbitrator had been appointed with the consent of both parties. * The arbitrator had given the parties full opportunity to adduce evidence before him. * The award was not open to any objection on the ground of misconduct or error apparent on the face of the record. 2. The court held that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 because: * Section 32 of the Act bars a suit involving decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award. * Section 33 of the Act provides that any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award or to have the effect of either determined shall apply to the court and the court shall decide the question on affidavits.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and allowed the defendants' appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the court below were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

Judgment

S.C.Prasad, J.

1. These two appeals have been heard together.

2. They are against the same judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga. The plaintiffs are the appellants in First Appeal No. 307 of 1951 and defendants 8 and 9, being the defendants 3rd and 4th parties respectively, are the appellants in First Appeal No. 254 of 1951. They are the Governments of India and Bihar in their Departments of Food.

3. The plaintiffs were partners as per deed of partnership dated the 13th July, 1958, and carried on business in partnership under the name and style of Manturam Jamunadhar at Jaynagar in the district of Darbhanga and at Jalalgarh in the district of Purnea as well as under the name and style of Dhurmall Mangturam at Bhaptiahi. The firms are registered ones and their head office was at Jaynagar of which Bhaptiahi and Jalalgarh business were branches, and under the firm Dhurmall Mangturam" at Bhaptiahi the plaintiffs had a rice mill known as Shree Hanuman Rice Mill, which had started to function from the 23rd April, 1944.

4. Defendant No. 1 has been described in the plaint as Agent to the Government of India. Defendant No. 2 was the Regional Grain Supply Officer of the Government of Bihar posted during the relevant period at Darbhanga. Defendant No. 6 was his Assistant also posted at Darbhanga. Defendant No. 3 was the Additional District Magistrate during the relevant period at Saharsa under whom defendants 4 and 5 were working as Subdivisional Officer of Supaul and Deputy Collector of Saharsa, respectively. Defendant No. 7 was the then Marketing Inspector of Nirmali.

5. During the year 1944 on account of war conditions there was great scarcity of foodgrams and the Government of India had, therefore, arranged for the procurement of paddy and rice in order to distribute it among the people of different Provinces in India and for that purpose, it was alleged by the plaintiffs, that defendant No. 1 had been appointed Agent by the. Government of India on the 11th January, 1944, his functions being to act as Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Government of India in respect of paddy to be procured within territory, of his Highness the Maharaja of Nepal, and, in addition, to be fully responsible for the milling in Bihar of such paddy for the delivery of an equivalent quantity of rice to such recipient administrations, or their representatives, as may be nominated by the Department of Food of the Government of India.

He has, amongst Other things, to make arrangement for parboiling and milling at specified mills of the paddy in respect of which a processing charge was to be paid at a rate per maund approved by the Government of Bihar from time to time. He had also to arrange for the despatch of rice ex-mill to the recipient administrations after having taken the necessary permits in respect of exports to Bengal and other Provinces and obtaining from the latter a clear discharge in respect of weights and quality, it being understood that transportation, and other delivery charges up to the point of loading and despatch were to be borne by the recipient Governments.

In consideration of doing these duties and others, he was to receive 2 annas per maund of paddy purchased by him, the foregoing charge to include weighing, filling into bags and their stitching incurred on paddy at the point of purchase. Defendant No. 1 was also to follow a particular procedure which was to govern the operations of these procedures as laid down by the Government of India in their letter dealing with the maintenance of accounts incurred by the defendant, submitting the bills and the taking of receipts from the recipient administrations. Defendant No. 1 was also paid an advance of Rs. 25,00,000.00 by the Government of India, the amount having been placed at his disposal with the Imperial Bank of India at Patna.

This advance was recoverable from defendant No. 1 finally under the orders of the Food Department of the Government of India, either,










































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top