Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.P.GUPTA,R.S.THAKUR
STATE OF H.P - Appellant
Versus
LILA DEVI - Respondent
F. A. O. No. 21 of 1975
Decided On : 07/02/1986
ARBITRATION - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR - ESTOPPEL - PARTIES CONSENTING TO APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR AND SUBMITTING TO JURISDICTION - CANNOT SUBSEQUENTLY CHALLENGE JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
In an arbitration proceeding, the appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the parties, claiming that only the Deputy Commissioner could act as an arbitrator as per the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator due to their conduct and acquiescence in appointing and submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
Issues: Whether the appellant was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator due to their conduct and acquiescence in appointing and submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to establish the principle of estoppel by conduct and acquiescence in arbitration proceedings. It held that the appellant's participation in the arbitration proceedings without raising any objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction at an early stage barred them from challenging the jurisdiction later.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the single judge, upholding the validity of the arbitration award.
V. G. Gupta, J. :- Shri Roshan Lal predecessor in interest of the respondents, purchased lot No. 2/64-66 of Chopal Forest Division along with other lots of Chopal and Rajgarh forest divisions in an open auction held on 7-2-1964 at Nahan for an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/-.
2. An agreement (Ex. PX-1) regarding this sale of trees was entered into between Shri Roshan Lal and the Union of India. The agreement was signed by the Secretary (Forest) to the Himachal Pradesh Government Simla who also happened to be the Chief Conservator of Forests on behalf of Union of India. Clause 29 of the agreement provides that disputes between the parties were to be referred for arbitration to the Deputy Commissioner Sirmour district or should he be unable or unwilling to act, to such assistant as the said Deputy Commissioner shall appoint as sole arbitrator.
3. Disputes arose between the parties and Shri Roshan Lal (now deceased) vide letter dated 29-1-1971 addressed to the Secretary (Forests) Government of Himachal Pradesh, requested that the matter in dispute be referred to an arbitrator. He also requested that the matter being mainly technical relating to forest trees, should be referred to a technically qualified person because it may not be possible for the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon such matters. He sent another letter dated 30-1-1971, to the Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh Simla, making a similar request. The Chief Conservator of Forests had written to the Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh seeking approval for change in the arbitrator named in the agreement as is evident from the letter dated 5-6-1971.
4. Shri Roshan Lal was informed through a letter dated 12-7-1971 by the Chief Conservator of Forests that Dr. M.P. Gupta Conservator of Forests Kulu would act as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. In this manner Dr. M.P. Gupta was appointed as an arbitrator with the consent of the parties.
5. Dr. M.P. Gupta (hereinafter the arbitrator) entered upon the reference in 1971 and sent notices to the parties to file their claims. Shri Roshan Lal filed his claims before the arbitrator in Nov. 1971, and the appellant also filed a reply to the claim in Jan. 1972. The arbitrator after recording the evidence and after several hearings finally gave his award on 18-3-1974. The appellant feeling dissatisfied with the award filed objections under Ss.30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter the Act) and claimed that the award be set aside on the ground of misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and the proceedings. This application was contested and upon the pleadings of the parties the following issue was framed by a learned single Judge : Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds, mentioned in the objection petition.
6. The parties produced evidence and finally a learned single Judge of this Court vide his judgement dated 9-1-1975 dismissed the application of the appellant and the award was made the rule of the Court.
7. Before the learned single Judge the appellant had also raised an objection that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter upon the reference and to give his award, because according to the terms of the agreement, Deputy Commissioner Sirmour only could act as an arbitrator. This contention was not accepted by the learned single Judge and it as held that the appellant was estopped from raising this contention in the facts and circumstances of the case. On merits too the findings were given against the appellant by the learned single Judge.
8. Aggrieved from the judgement dated 9-1-1975 of the learned single Judge, the appellant has now filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us was that Dr. M.P. Gupta (Conservator of Forests, Kulu) could not act as an arbitrator because according to clause 29 of the agreement only the Deputy Commissioner
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
