25 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. Vs JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO.

Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE,S.B. SINHA
Case number: C.A. No.-005479-005479 / 2004
Diary number: 2515 / 2004
Advocates: Vs PRADEEP MISRA


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5479 of 2004

PETITIONER: U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.                                

RESPONDENT: Jain Construction Co. & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/2004

BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C)  No.4459 of 2004)

S.B. SINHA,  J :

                Leave granted.

       This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  2.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in A.O.  No.313 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the respondents  herein purported to be under Section 39(iv) of the Arbitration Act, 1940  (hereinafter referred to  as ’the 1940 Act)  was allowed,  directing : "Since, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  has come into force, therefore, appropriate remedy  to relegate is available to the parties to act in  accordance with the provisions of the new Act, if  there is an arbitration clause in the agreement.  It is  an open remedy to the party to move to approach  to the Chief Justice or His Nominated Judge in the  arbitration under the New Act."

       The basic fact of the mater is not in dispute.   The parties hereto had  entered into an agreement on or about 11.4.1988 as regard certain civil  works in an unit belonging to the Appellant herein.  Disputes and differences  having arisen between the parties, the respondent herein filed an application  under Section 20 of the 1940 Act in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun  for appointment of an arbitrator relying on or on the basis of a purported  arbitration agreement contained in clause 34 of the  aforementioned contract.   The said suit was marked as O.S. No.290 of 1991.  The respondent herein,  inter alia, pleaded :

"That as per clause no.34 of  contract bond all  disputes between the parties arising under the  contract, arbitrator is to be appointed by  Managing Director of the Defendant  Corporation.   The plaintiff has written so many  letters to the M.D. and Secretary of Corporation  for appointment of Arbitrator but they did not  pay any attention and have not appointed any  Arbitrator so far, so the plaintiff is entitled to get  the appointment of Arbitrator from the Court."

       By reason of a judgment and order dated 1.5.1992, the learned Civil  Judge, Dehradun rejected the said petition, inter alia, on the ground that the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

same was not maintainable in view of  Section 69 of the Indian Partnership  Act, as the plaintiff-firm was not a registered one.  The said finding was  arrived at  despite the fact that the respondent herein had filed an application  for amendment of the said petition.  As it appears from the judgment of the  learned Civil Judge, that the  respondent  herein had admitted that it failed to  make necessary averment in the plaint as regard registration of the firm  inadvertently and the application for amendment has been filed having  regard to the contentions raised by the Appellant herein in that behalf.  The  respondent herein being aggrieved by the said judgment filed an appeal  before the High Court which was marked as A.O. No.313 of 2002.   The said  appeal was allowed in the manner as stated hereinbefore.

       Mr. Vinay Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,  would submit that as the respondent-firm was not a registered one, the  application for appointment of an arbitrator both under the 1940 Act and the  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1996  Act’)  was not maintainable.  Reliance, in this connection, has been placed  on Firm Ashok Traders and Another vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja and Others  [(2004) 3 SCC 155].  It was also contended that in any event, the impugned  judgment is unsustainable in law in view of the provisions contained in  Section 85(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, as the arbitral proceeding was initiated as  far back as on 1.5.1991, i.e. prior to coming into force of the 1996 Act.   

The respondent appearing in person, inter alia, submitted that in a  similar matter being SLP (C) No.18995 of 1995 arising out of an order in   Appeal No.493 of 1995 passed by the Allahabad High Court, this Court  directed the Additional Civil Judge, to whom the matter was remitted, to  appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 34 of the contract between the parties  and, thus, there is absolutely no reason as to why clause 34 of the present  agreement,  which contains similar stipulation, should not be acted upon.  A  written submission has also been filed before us, inter alia, contending that  the Appellant herein is guilty of commission of  breach of the said  agreement dated 11.4.1988.

The question as to whether the respondent no.1-firm is registered or  not is essentially a question of fact.  It is true that the arbitral proceedings  would not be maintainable at the instance of an unregistered firm having  regard to the mandatory provisions contained in Section 69 of the Indian  Partnership Act, 1932.  It has been so held in Jagdish Chandra Gupta vs.  Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. [AIR 1964 SC 1882].        We may, however, notice  that this Court in Firm Ashoka Traders (supra) despite following Jagdish  Chandra Gupta held that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act would  have no bearing on the right of a party to an arbitration clause under Section  9 of the 1996 Act.  As correctness or otherwise of the said decision is not in  question before us, it is not necessary to say anything in this behalf but  suffice it to point out that in the event it is found by the High Court that the  learned Civil Judge was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment of   the plaint and in fact the respondent-firm was registered under the Indian  Partnership Act,  the question of throwing out the said suit on that ground  would not arise.  There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the  firm must be registered at the time of institution of the suit and not later on.  [See Delhi Development Authority vs. Kochhar Construction Work and  Another \026 (1998) 8 SCC 559].    

The said questions, thus, would fall for consideration before the High  Court.              The only question which survives consideration is the applicability of  the 1996 Act in the fact of the present case.  Disputes and differences  between the parties arose in the year 1991.  The respondent filed an  application under Section 20 of the 1940 Act on 1.5.1991.  It invoked the  arbitration agreement as contained in clause 34 of the contract.  The arbitral  proceeding was, therefore, set in motion.  In terms of Section 21 of the 1996  Act, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commences on  a date on which the request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration was

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

received by the respondent.   

Section 85 (2)(a) of the 1996 Act reads thus :

"85. Repeal and saving.-(1) The Arbitration  (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937),  the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the  Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement)  Act, 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,-

(a)     the provisions of the said enactments shall apply  in relation to arbitral proceedings which  commenced before this Act came into force  unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this  Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings  which commenced on or after this Act comes  into force;

(b)     all rules made and notifications published,  under the said enactments shall, to the extent to  which they are not repugnant to this Act, be  deemed respectively to have been made or  issued under this Act."

This Court in Milkfood Ltd. vs. M/s GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. [JT  2004 (4) SC 393] , relying on or on the basis of  Shetty’s Constructions Co.  Pvt. Ltd. vs. Konkan Railway Construction and Another [(1998) 5 SCC  599),  Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(1999) 9  SCC 334 = JT 1999 (8) SC 66], Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs. Jindal Exports  Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 356] and State of  West Bengal vs. Amritlal Chatterjee  [(JT 2003 (Supp.1) SC 308], held that in respect of the arbitral proceedings  commenced before coming into force the 1996 Act, the  provisions of  the  1940 Act  shall apply.

In view of the aforementioned pronouncements of this Court, the  impugned judgment cannot be sustained.  It is set aside accordingly.  The  matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the merit of the  matter afresh.   

Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, we  would request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as  possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt  of a copy of this order.   

The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations and  directions.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order  as to costs.