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

1973 Supreme(MP) 25

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. P. Sen and J. S. Verma, JJ.
DILIP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. - Respondents
Miscellaneous (First) Appeal 132 Of 1970
Decided On : 02/28/1973

Advocates Appeared:
DEVI PRASAD AGRAWAL, H.L.KHASKALAM, Ram Kumar Verma

Headnote:(1) Arbitration Act, 1940 - Ss.3 & 5 - jurisdiction of arbitrator-a dispute must exist between the parties-what is a dispute failure to pay.

       The existance of a dispute is an essential condition for the jurisdiction of an arbitrator. If there is no dispute, there can be no legal right to demand arbitration at all. Failure to pay does not necessarily constitute a difference or dispute. A dispute implies an assertion of right by one party and repudiation thereof by another. The jurisdiction of an arbitrator depends not upon the existence of a claim or the accrual of a cause of action, but upon the existence of a dispute. ILR 46 Ca1.534, (1919-20) 24 CWN 775, 1899 AC 79 (HL), ILR (1939) Cal. 181, ILR 1950 [1] Cal. 497, (1921) 33 CLJ 545, AIR 1931 Bom. 164 referred to. [Paras 10 and 12

       Where one party merely asserts a claim of some amount, but there is no repudiation of that claim by the other party, there could be no dispute which could be referred to arbitration. [Para 10

       (2) Arbitration -objection to the jurisdiction of arbitrator taken – subsequent participation in the proceedings objection to jurisdiction not waived -such participation does not give jurisdiction to the arbitrator.

       It is well settled by authority that once the parties appearing before the arbitrators object to the jurisdiction they do not waive their rights by proceedings with the case before the arbitrators and defending themselves as best as they may. [Para 14

       Thus the appearance of the respondent after objection taken and protest made did not give the arbitrators or the umpire authority to make an award, nor estopped it from urging that the umpire has exceeded his authority. In such a case no question of estoppel acquiescence or waiver arises. AIR 1927 Bom. 553, AIR 1931 Bom, 81 & AIR 1931 Bom. 343 relied on. 3 IA 220, AIR 1920 PC 123, LR (1925) AC 619 distinguished. AIR 1961 SC 1810 referred to. [Para 15

       (3) Arbitration Act. 1940 - S.20 - other party not willing to join in submission to the arbitrator - proper course is to apply under section 20. AIR 1955 SC 468 relied on. [Para 18

       (4) Jurisdiction-inherent lack of-cannot he cured by waiver-order a nullity -can be challenged in collateral proceedings.

       It is now well settled that an inherent lack of juridiction or want of jurisdiction renders the ultimate decision a nullity so that it can be challenged at any subsequent stage and even in collateral proceedings, Such a defect cannot be cured even by waiver or acquiescence of the party entitled to raise the objection, AIR 1954 SC 340 relied on.

       (5) Jurisdiction - meaning of-defects of jurisdiction cropping up after commencement of the case-also included.

       By now the expression "jurisdiction" has acquired a much wider meaning. However, the expression "jurisdiction" even in its original sense when it was limited, included within its ambit the stage of commencement of a proceeding.

       This theory has now been modified by enlarging scope of the expression 'jurisdiction" so as to include in its ambit even those defects which may crop up later during the course of the proceeding. 1971 (I) SCC 486 & (1969) 1 AER 208, relied on. [Para 19

SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 (1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, preferred by M/s. Dilip Construction Co. from an order of the District Judge, Durg at Rajnandgaon, setting aside an award of the umpire in its favour, directing the payment of a sum of Rs. 8,65,000/- by the Hindustan Steel Ltd.

( 2 ) THE material facts, shortly stated, are these. By a contract dated 26th February, 1960, the appellant was employed by the respondent for winning and raising 45,00,000 Cft. of BF grade lime-stone ore from its Nandini Mines, and for transporting and loading the same into wagons at the railway siding of the mines. The deed of contract contained an arbitration clause, and it reads thus:

"61. If at any time any question, dispute or difference whatsoever shall arise between the Employer and the Contractor upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract either party forthwith give to the other notice in writing of the existence of such question, dispute or difference and the sama shall be referred to the arbitration of two persons, one to be nominated by the Employer and the other by the Contractor or failing agreement between these two to an Umpire appointed by them. Such submission shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification thereof. The award of the Arbitrators or Umpire shall be final and binding upon the parties upon every or any such reference, the costs of and incidental to the reference and to the award respectively shall, subject to the condition that the amount of such costs to be awarded to either party shall not, in respect of a monetary claim exceed the percentage set out below of any such award, irrespective of the actual fees, costs and expenses incurred by either party, be in the discretion of the arbitrators or umpire who shall determine the amount thereof, as between party and party and direct by whom and to whom and in what manner the same shall be borne and paid. Work under the contract shall, if reasonably possible, continue during the arbitration proceedings, and no payments due or payable by the Employer shall be withheld on account of such proceedings. Provided, that in matter of claims where the amount involved does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- the decision of the Engineer shall be final and binding on the contractor and such items shall not be open to arbitration. Except that no issues on which the final settlement is otherwise provided for in this contract shall be referred to Arbitration. "

( 3 ) THE period stipulated in the contract for the completion of the work was of 12 months w. e. f. 29th December, 1959, but that period was extended from time to time upto 15th December, 1961. During the period in question, the appellant could perform the contract to the extent of 31,52,132. 32 Cft. of lime stone, and received payments for the work done against running bills. Upon termination of the contract, the respondent prepared a final bill for Rupees 21,000/ -. This was not accepted by the appellant and it instead submitted its own bill dated 5th May, 1965, raising a demand for payment of Rs. 16,77,197. 28 P. That was followed by a letter dated 28th May, 1965, addressed by the appellant to the respondent, by which it requested a final settlement of accounts within 15 days. On 21st June, 1965, the appellant served the respondent with a lawyer's notice of submission to arbitration, stating that it had named one L. V. Parekh to be its arbitrator and requesting the respondent to nominate its arbitrator within 10 days, failing which the arbitrator named by it was to become the sole arbitrator and was to proceed with the reference. In response to the same, the respondent sent a reply dated 2nd July, 1965 to the following effect:

"in the contract under reference between your clients and the Hindustan steel Limited, Bhilai Plant, no dispute as contemplated under the arbitration agreement has arisen, which would e










































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