Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Brij Mohan Lall and Oak, JJ.
KASHI PRASAD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GUPTESHWAR SINGH - Respondents
Civil Revn. 368 Of 1952
Decided On : 11/08/1955
ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 - SECTION 8 - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS - COURT'S JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 8 - COMPARISON WITH ARBITRATION ACT, 1899 - POWER TO APPOINT MULTIPLE ARBITRATORS - SECTION 13(2), GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - APPLICATION OF SINGULAR AND PLURAL WORDS.
Fact of the Case:
An arbitration agreement was executed between three parties, with two arbitrators and a Sarpanch appointed. Two of the arbitrators refused to act, leading to an application to the court for the appointment of new arbitrators under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The applicant challenged the court's jurisdiction to appoint multiple arbitrators.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court has the jurisdiction to appoint multiple arbitrators if the arbitrators appointed by the parties have refused to act. The court distinguished this provision from the language of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1899, which limited the court's power to appointing a single arbitrator.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to appoint multiple arbitrators under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when the arbitrators appointed by the parties have refused to act. 2. Interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and comparison with Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1899.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and found that the language of the provision, particularly the use of the phrase "an arbitrator or arbitrators," indicates that the court has the power to appoint multiple arbitrators. 2. The court distinguished the language of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, from that of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1899, which limited the court's power to appointing a single arbitrator. 3. The court also referred to Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and the first appeal from order, upholding the lower court's decision to appoint multiple arbitrators.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is connected with First Appeal from Order No. 328 of 1952.
( 2 ) IT appears that the applicant, Thakural Kashi Prasad Singh and two of the opposite parties, viz. , Thakurai Gupteshwar Singh and Thakurai Jagdish Prasadi Singh, executed an arbitration agreement on 29-4-1950. They appointed two persons, viz. , Sri Raj Kishore Singh and Sri Mutun behari Singh, as arbitrators and a third person, Sri Jai Shankar Lal Vakil, as Sarpanch. As no suit was pending, the arbitration was intended to take place without the intervention of the court. It so happened that Sri Raj Kishore Singh and Sri Mutun Behari Singh refused to act as arbitrators. Thereupon Thakurai Gupteshwar Singh served notices on the other two executants of the arbitration agreement calling upon them to nominate fresh arbitrators. No step was taken by the remaining two executants on receipt of these notices, whereupon Thakurai Gupteshwar Singh made an application to court under Section 8 (2), Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940) for the appointment of arbitrators in place of the two arbitrators mentioned in the arbitration agreement who had refused to act. This application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 65 of 1950. It was opposed by the present applicant, Thakurai Kashi Prasad Singh, Ultimately the learned Civil Judge appointed two Vakils, viz. , Sri Vishwanath Prasad and Sri Ram Chandra Das, as arbitrators. He added that their fees will be paid by the parties which will be determined afterwards". Dissatisfied with this decision Thakurai Kashi Prasad Singh has come up in revision.
( 3 ) THIS revision was filed on 1-4-1952. An order was passed in this revision on 16-10-1952 for stay of proceedings in Miscellaneous Case No. 65 of 1950. Meanwhile, an award had been made by the arbitrators appointed by the court and an application had been made on 10-10-1952 by thakurai Gupteshwar Singh under Section 14, Arbitration Act for filing the award and for making it a rule of the court under Section 17. This was registered aa Case No. 76 of 1952. On 17-11-1952 Thakurai Gupteshwar Singh made an application to the court for appointment of a receiver. Thakurai Kashi, Prasad Singh objected that the proceedings had been stayed. The learned Civil Judge, by his order dated 24-11-1952, held that the stay order passed) by this Court related to Miscellaneous Case No. 65 of 1950 and not to Case No. 76 of 1952. But he granted twelve days time to Thakural Kashi Prasad Singh to obtain a fresh stay order from this Court, if he so desired. Against this order First Appeal from Order No. 328 of 1952 has been filed.
( 4 ) THE main point for decision in these cases is that involved in the revision, i. e. , whether the court below had jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators in place of those who had refused to act as such. If the revision fails, the First Appeal From Order will fail automatically.
( 5 ) THE contention put forward by the learn-ed counsel for the applicant is that had there been a single arbitrator and had he refused to act as such, the court could appoint a fresh arbitrator In his place, but that if more than one arbitrator had been named by the parties and if they had refused to act as such the court had no jurisdiction to appoint their substitutes. In support of this contention the learned counsel has cited the cases of -- gopalji Kuverji v. Morarji Jeram, 1919 Bom 24 (AIR V 6) (A), and -- ram Chandra and Bros. v. Continental Stores and Agency Co. , Ltd. , 1935 Oudh 28 (AIR V 22) (B ). It may, however, be pointed out that both these cases were decided prior to the enactment of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940 ). These cases were decided under the Arbitration Act of 1899, and they purport to interpret the language of Section 8 of that Act. This language, as will presently be pointed out, was different from the language of Section 8 of the present Act.
( 6 ) THE relevant portion of Section 8, Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) was as follows:
"8. (
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
