Arbitration clause named the Chief Commissioner and the Director of Storage; that post was abolished and the Chief Commissioner refused to act. The Supreme Court held the vacancy could be supplied under Section 8(1)(b) unless the agreement showed no such intention, and dismissed the appeals with costs.
Both appeals dismissed; costs quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
128
A
'
UNION OF INDIA
v.
R. B. CH RAGHUNATH SINGH & CO.
July 27, 1979
B
c
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.)
Arbitration ~4ct, 1940, Section 8(1)(b) applicability of-Atbitration agreement specifies two names of arbitrators by designation-One such designated post abolished and the second nan1cd officer refuses ta act-Whether a Court can (lppoint another arbitrator.
D.isruissjng the appeals by certific21te, th'e Court
~
HELD : 1. The Court had no power to supply the vacancy under section. 8 (1) (b) of the Arbitration Act only if the arbitration agreement did show that the rarties did not intend to supply the vacancy. The words in sr.;:ction 8 ( 1) (b) arc these : "and arbitration agreemeint does not show that it Yl&S intended that the vacancy should not be supplied". If no such intention could be culled out from the arbitration clause, the Court could supply the vacancy.
D
[129 D-EJ.
Mjs. Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of India and Anr., [1971] 2 S.C.R. 564; affirmed.
Bada1n Satyanarayananiurthi v. Badarn Vrenkatara1nanamurthi, A.1.R. 1948Madras 312; distinguished.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2472-2473 of 1969.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 26-4-1966 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 447 /61 and 476/60.
F
R. N. ~achthey, R. B. Datar, Girish Chandra and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
R. K. Garg for the Respondent.
Th·~ Order of the Court was delivered by
G
H
UNTWALIA, J. These two appeals by certificate arise out of the same proceedings between the parties. The respondent company applied to the Trial Court for the filing of the Arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act and for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8. The applications were allowed. An Arbitrator was appointed. The Union of India took the matter in appeals to the Allahabad High Court. The High Court has dismissed the appeal arising out of the order of the Trial Court under Section 20 of the Act and has treated the appeal arising out of Section 8 order as a revision and dismissed the samo· also. The Union of India has come to this Court.
' l
UNION v. RAGllUNATH SINGH & co. (Untwalia, J.) 129
> J
' '
• -
The decisions of the courts below in regard to Section 20 matM is at an e"nd now. It was denied on behalf of the appellant that there was any Arbitration agreement. The findings of the court below in this regard could not be assailed at all.
The Arbitration clause in the contract between the parties ran as follows
"All disputes or differences arising between the parties or their representatives and the Controller of Rationing Delhi at any time hereafter and of whatever nature arising out of or in respect of the contract shall be refurred for arbitration to the Chief Commissioner /Director of Storage, Ministry of Food, Government of India, and his decision shall be final and bi"nding."
The post of Director of Storage, Ministry of Food, Gowrnment of India was abolished and no person holding that post was available for arbitration for the purpose of the arbitration clause aforesaid. The Chief Commissioner, however, was available but he refused to act. That led the respondent company to apply to the court under Section 8 of the Act for appointment of a'nother Arbitrator. The argumerrt put forward on behalf of the appellant is that when there . was a named Arbitrator even thongh he was named by office, it was not open to the court to supply the vacancy in his place under Section S(l)(b) of the Act. We did not find any substa"nce in this argument. The court had no powzr to supply the vacancy under Section 8(1) (b) only if the arbitration agreement did show that the parties did not intend to supply the vacancy. If no such intention could be culled out from the arbitration clause, the court could supply the vaca"ncy. There is a direct decision of this Court in M/s . . Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of llldia & Another.(')
Mr. R. B. Datar, counsel for the appellant placed the reliance upon the Full Bench Decision of Madras High Court in Badam Satayanarayanamurthi v. Badam Venkataramanamurthi & Ors.('), in support of his submission that no other Arbitrator could be appointed by the court under Section 8 of the Ad when tho Arbitrator named in the agreement refused to act. In our opinion while considering the provisions of SectiO"n 8 (1) (b) of the Act, that decision is of no help to the appellant. The full Bench decision was given with reference t"o the corresponding provisions of
n.
c
D·
E
F
G
H
(ll (1971] 2 s.c.R. 564.
(2) A.l.R. 1948 Mtdros 312.
| 130 SUPREMP. COURTREPORTS [1980] 1S.C.R. |
||
|---|---|---|
| A | lawcontained in Schedule II of Code of CivilProcedure,1908in paragraph5whereof the crucial words occurring in SectionS(l){b) oftheAct were not there. The words in Section 8(1)(b)are these : "and arbitration agreement does not show that itwasintended that the vacancy should not be supplied." |
'-,..-.. • , |
| B | For the reasons stated above,wehold that thereisno merit in either of thetwoappeals. They are accordingly dismissed with costs whichwequantify at Rs. 1500/-. |
"- • |
| S.R. Appeals dismissed. |
• ' -•
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a court can appoint another arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) when the arbitrator named by designation is unavailable or refuses to act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of India and Anr.Relied on¶37
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 564 · Who else cites this
Badam Satyanarayanamurthi v. Badam VenkataramanamurthiDistinguished¶38
A.I.R. 1948 Madras 312 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
R. B. Ch Ragunath Singh & Co.
N. L. Untwalia
A. P. Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
