Dismissed

Pratap Singh v. Preetam Singh & Anr.

Supreme Court19 Aug 19691969 INSC 188 · [1982] 3 S.C.R. 7761969 INSC 188

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partnership dispute referred to arbitration; extension of time sought from Delhi court whose jurisdiction was challenged. Respondent sued in Madhya Pradesh and obtained appointment of a receiver despite stay of the suit under s.34. Held that while the arbitrator's court's jurisdiction was undetermined, the court seized of the suit could appoint a receiver.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal by special leave against receiver-appointment order dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Pratap Singh versus Preetam Singh & Anr. — Arbitration | Supreme Court (1982)

¶1

776 PRAJAP SINGH v. B PRBETAM S.INGH & ANR. August 19, 1969 [J:C. SHAH, ACTING CJ., V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER,JJ.} c Arbitration Act, 1940-Stctlon 31(4)-Scopl of.

¶2

D	Tbe appellant and the respondentwerecarrying on threebusineMesat threediffe.rentplaces-Piptiya in MadhyaPrades~.Bombay110dNagpur. Certain disputes relatingtothe partnertbip business were referredtoan arbitrator. Having not been able to completeti;lereference within four months, the arbitrator appliedtothe Subordinate Judge, Delhiforextensionoftime.Overruling the objection as to his jurisdictiontoe.ntertain the application the Subordinate Judge, Delhi granted extension of time for making the award.
I	When the revision application against this order was pending before the High CourtofDelhi, the respondent filed a suitinthe court_ot_the Additional . District Judge in Madhya Pradesh for certain' reliefs. In the meantime the appel· lant applied under s.34ofthe Arbitration Act for stayofthe suit. The Addi- tional District Judge appointed a receiver of the properties.Inappeal the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that having regardtothe proceedings pendingintl:ie High Court at Delhiitwasa case in which, without adjudicating upon the juris- dictionofthe Subordinate JudgeatDelhi,the.application for appointmentofthe _r_receiver was maintainable.

Tbe appellant and the respondentwerecarrying on threebusineMesat
threediffe.rentplaces-Piptiya in MadhyaPrades~.Bombay110dNagpur. Certain
disputes relatingtothe partnertbip business were referredtoan arbitrator.
Having not been able to completeti;lereference within four months, the arbitrator
appliedtothe Subordinate Judge, Delhiforextensionoftime.Overruling the
objection as to his jurisdictiontoe.ntertain the application the Subordinate Judge,
Delhi granted extension of time for making the award.

When the revision application against this order was pending before the
High CourtofDelhi, the respondent filed a suitinthe court_ot_the Additional
. District Judge in Madhya Pradesh for certain' reliefs. In the meantime the appel·
lant applied under s.34ofthe Arbitration Act for stayofthe suit. The Addi-
tional District Judge appointed a receiver of the properties.Inappeal the Madhya
Pradesh High Court held that having regardtothe proceedings pendingintl:ie
High Court at Delhiitwasa case in which, without adjudicating upon the juris-
dictionofthe Subordinate JudgeatDelhi,the.application for appointmentofthe
_r_receiver was maintainable.

¶3

~ -

¶4

.) )

¶5

F	Inappealtothis Courtitwas contended thatitwasopen to a Courtto appoint a receiverofany other property in disputeorin relationtoany procee- dings beforethearbitrator andbycoofirmentofthat power, the power of the Civil Courtina suitt~appoint a receiver·was excluded and, therefore, the only Court competenttoentertain an application for. appointmentofa receiver was the Subordinate Judge at Delhi and not the courtofAdditional District Judgein Madhya Pradesh.
G	_-nismissingthe appeal,

¶6

HELD : Normally for the, grant of interim relief in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute before an arbitrator the parties would have to resort _ to that court to which tho application for extension of time to make the award H was made. But as the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi to entertain tbe applicati.on for exteQ$ion of time w~ in d_ispute the Civil Court

¶7

PRATA.P\SINGH_v.PREBTAMSINGH{J.C.Shah,Ag._C.J.) 777 which is seisedofthe suitwasentitled to make appropriate orders for preserving the property whichisthe subject-matterofthe-suit.[780C-D] · Therefo're, the Civil CourtinMadhya Pradesh was competent to appoint areceiver ofthe·property unfilthequestion about tbe jurisdiction of the Delhi Court under s.31(4)oftheArbitrationActto entertain appli!:;aiions arising out ofthe order of referencewasfinally determined. After the High CourtofDelhi determined tbat question, tbe receiver appointed,inorder to comply withthe requirements ofthestatute,maybemade subject to the jurisdiction oftheDelhi Courtifitbeheldthat the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appli· cation.[780·B)	B
CIVILAPPELLATEJuRISDICTION:CivilAppeaLNo.2321of-. 1 1968.	C
AppealbySpecial Leave from the Judgment and Order dared the1stNovember,1968ofthe-.MadhyaPradesh High Court,· Indore· BenchinCivilMiscellaneous AppealNo.111of1967..	D
_C.K. Daphtary_and_B. Dutra_for the Appellant. _P.C. Khanna_for Respondent No.1. I The Judgmentofthe Courtwasdeliveredby
J.C.SHAH,AG._C.J:_Pratap Singh, PreetamSinghandDiwan Singhare three brothers. PratapSinghand Preetam Singh. carried onbusinessinpartnership, at three places-{I)·PipliyainMadhya Pradesh,inthe·name of the Jaora SlatePencilWorks;{2)Bombay, inthe name of Partap Bro!hers; and(3)Nagpur,inthe name of NiceTiles and Marble, Nagpur:Byanagreement dated Decem- ber18,\965 disputesbetweenPratapSinghand PreetamSingh relating to the partnershipbusinesswerereferred to the arbitration of their brother Diwan Singh. The arbitratorenter~dupon the reference, butbewasunable to complete thereferencewithin four months..DiwanSingh,l!ppliedto the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi,-unders.28of the Arbitration Act for extension of time. PreetamSinghobjectedtothe jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi to entertain the application.TheSubordinate Judge overruled the objection and granted extension oftimefor making the award. Arevisionapplication,. preferred againsttheorderis pending before theHighCourtofDelhi.	F G _ H

¶8

....... .·

¶9

778

¶10

SUPREMB COURT REPORTS

¶11

A · Jn the nieanwbile.Preetam Singh filed an action in the Co~rt of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur against Pratap Singh and Pritipal Singh (brother-in-law of Preetam Singh) for a decree for rendition of account of the dealing ·in respect of the J aora Slate Pencil-Works and for appointment of a receiver. By amendment of

¶12

. the plaint a claim for d_issolution of partnership was also made.

¶13

B Pratap Singh applied under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for stay of the suit, and the' applicati<•n was granted. But the Additional District Judge clirected th.at a receiver be appointed of the properties of the Jaora Slate Pencil Works at Pipliya.· Against that order an appeal was carried to 'the High Court of t\fadhya Pradesh. The High Court was of the view that a case was made out for the

¶14

c appointment of the receiver. The Court further held that having regard to the proceedings pending in the High Court at Delhi it was a case in. which without adjudicating upon the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi, the application for appointment of the · receiver was maintainable. Against that order, with special leave,

¶15

0 . this appeal baa been preferred.

¶16

' The only question argued in this appeal is about the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur to entertain the suit and to appoint a receiver. The relevant statutory provisions may in the first be noticed.

¶17

¶18

. I

¶19

Dy cl. 3 or Sch. 1 of the Arbitration Act the arbitrator is required to make an award within four months after entering on the reference, Section 28 of the Act provides that the Court may, if it thinks fit, whether the time for making the award has expired or not and whether the award bas bee~ made or not, enlarge from time to F time the time for making the award, and the ellpression "Court" is defined in s, 2 (c) as meaning "a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subj~:ct-mattt:r of the reference if . i ' the aame bad been the subject-matter of a suit, but • • . . .....

¶20

¶21

Section 31 of the Act pruvides.

(I)) ...

1-1

(2)

· (3) All application~ regarding the conduct of arbitratiod

¶26

. : .· ·' .(4) .	proceedipgsor otherwise ·arisingoutofsuchpro· ceedingsshallbemad'e ·tothe Courtwheretheaward hasbeen,ormaybe,.filed,and tonoother Court • . Notwithstanding anything containedelsewherei.n this Actorinanyotherlawfor thetimebeinginforce, whereinanyreferenceanyapplication underthis·Act hasbeenmadeinaCourt'competenttoentertainit, that Courtalone'shallhave· jurisdiction over the arbitrationproceedingsand allsubsequentapplications arising out of thatreferenceandthearbitrati~npro- ceedingsshallbemadein.that Court andnoother· Court ...	c
., .Sec itismate I . · .., ' · ' -'- J . · o~:	tion34o.rthe Actprovidesforstayofa suit.Inso·faras rialitenacts. "Whereanypartyto an arbitrationagreement commencesanylegalproceedingsagai~stany· other · party to· theagreement' ..:._.inrespect-of anymatteragreedtobereferred,anyparty tosuchlegal proceeditigsmay,atanytimebefore.filinga~tten statemenfortakinganyo!herstepsintheproCeedings, applytothejudicial aut6orjty befotewhichthe pro· ceedings'arependingtostaytheproceedings;andif satisfiedthat thereisnosuffieientreason ·whythe · mt!tershouldnotbe·referredinaccordancewiththe armtrationagreementandthat the applicationwas,at thetimewhentheproceedingswere'.comrrienced,·and ·.stillremai'dsready'andwillingto doallthingsnecessaey. tothe proper conduct'ofthearbitrationsucha1,1tborhy maymakeanorderstayingtheproceedings."	' D ''E .'
Aappli Dlstrict .lranted. 'priae~r excluded granted	cation for stay of the suit .ndingtoreUteAddit,9nal Judge,MandsautwasmadebyPratapSinghanditwas Buttherebythejuridiction:pftheo.urt'to pass appro· drsfor protecting thesubjectm,ttrofthe suitwasnot .Anapplictionfor appointment of a :receivercou_l~•.be notwithstanding the order:o~stayof suit unders.34ofthe	H

¶27

A~ application for stay of the suit . nding tore Ute Addit,9nal Dlstrict Judge, Mandsaut was made by Pratap Singh and it was .lranted. But thereby the juridiction: pf the o.urt' to pass appro· ' priae rdrs for protecting the subject m,ttr of the suit was not excluded. An appliction for appointment of a :receiver cou_l~ •. be granted notwithstanding the order: o~ stay of suit under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act. But it was urged that it is open to the Court as d~fined in s. 2 (c) under s. 41 read with the Schedule to ·the

¶28

stJPR£MB cotJRt itEi>oilts (19s21 3 s.t!.i.

¶29

.. I [.	A < u· c -....	Arbitration Act.toappoint a receiverofanyotherproperty in disputeorin relation,toany proceedings beforethearbitrator, and by confermentofthatpower,thepoweroftheCivilCourtin a suit toappoint a receiver is excluded.Onthatpremiseitwas urged that theonly Court competenttoentertainanapplicationforappoint- mentofa receiver was the SubordinateJudge'sCourtatDelhi and nottheCourtoftheAdditional District Judge, Mandsaur.Itis true thatanapplicationforextensionoftimetomaketheawardwas madetotheCour~oftheSubordinate Judge, Delhiand· normally the parties would havetoresorttothatCourtforinterim reliefin respectofthe subject-matterofthedispute beforethearbitrator. But so longas.thejurisdictionoftheCourtofthe Subordinate Judge, Delhitoentertaintheapplicationforeitensionof_time_was in dispute the CivilCourtwhich is seizedofthesuit was entitledto make _appropriate ordersforpreservingtheproperty which isthe subject-matterofthesuit.
I·	D E	WearethereforeoftheviewthattheCivilCourtatMandsaur was competenttoappointareceiverofthepropertyuntilthe questionaboutthejurisdictionofthe DelhiCourtunders.31 (4)to entertain applications arisingoutoftheorderofreferenceisfinally determined. After theHighCourtofDelhi determinesthatques- tion, the receiver appointed, inordertocomply withtherequire- mentsofthe statute, maybemadesubjecttothejurisdictionofthe Delhi Court,ifitbeheldthatDelhiCourthad. jurisdictionto entertaintheapplication.

¶30

F	Itwas urgedthatthesuit filedatMandsauronly relates tothe assets,ofthepartnershipatPipliya withintheStateofMadhya Pradesh and doesnotrelatetotheproper~iesatBombayandNagpur
	andt~atby the expe.dientofobtaininganorderforappointmentof
	arecetver Preetam Smgbhasmanagedtoremain in possessionofthe
G H	propertiesatDobayandNagpurtotheexclusionofPratapSingh. Wecannotatthis stage,de~~~e.wbetherthesuitinsofartt:iit relates tothesset~ofthepartn~~s.ipatPipliya aloneismaintainable. The arburatJO.nprocedings.undoubtedly relatetoalltheassetsof the PartnershtpandtfPreetam Singhascontend..dbp s·.h h • d · • • -. YratapIDg, as rrmatnetnpossessaonofthe propertiesofthepartnersbi at Dombay.and Nagpurtotho exclusionofPratapSinghanditisp·ust andequttable tohaveareceiver appointedh' . J · • ISreO\edy IStoCOnl"

¶31

¶32

. /
PitdAP !IN(nt •.. Pki!ilTAM stN6H (J.C. s~J,. Ag. C.i.) 7ai
mence appropriate proceedingdor that purpose and to apply to a
competent court to appoint a receiver of the properties .
. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs.
B
•
- P.B.R. Appealtdismis_sed.
)

Pratap Singh v. Preetam Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Pratap Singh v. Preetam Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. C. Nambiar versus the IV Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras & Ors.

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus Ibrahim Mahommed Issak

Sales Tax Officer & Anr. versus Sudarsanam Iyengar & Sons

Maula Bux versus Union of India

Kalanka Devi Sanstiian versus Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors.

Sitabai & Anr. versus Ram Chandra