9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f earth and also for the construction of a drainage in New Partap Canal, Akhnoor, Eventually the Chief Engineer of the Department issued a demand notice calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of ₹ 5913.00 which was alleged to be due from him. Steps were taken to enforce the claim by recovering it as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner appellant denied his liability to pay the amount, and he by means of the application sought the arbitration of the Chief Engineer on the matter. He called in question the power of the Chief Engineer to have arbitrarily modified the rates to his disadvantage. This petition was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. The maintainability of the petition was inter alia objected to on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputed the power of the Chief Engineer to have modified the rates. He therefore, asked the civil court to consider this matter quash the notice of demand, and grant a decree for perpetual injunction against the Chief Engineer. Now the matter upon which the petitioner appellant sought arbitration by means of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was precisely the same as in the civil suit which was pending before the civil court. That suit was, however, dismissed by the civil court. In fact it was during the continuance of the proceedings of the civil suit that the appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. In the said application he did not make any mention of the pendency of the civil suit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC 402 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant have got no application to the facts of the present case and they are distinguishable Neither in AIR 1962 SC 406 nor in AIR 1966 SC 402 was there any question involved relating to the pendency or dismissal of a suit by a party to an arbitration agreement. The ratio as laid down in AIR 1962 SC 406, is that where parties enter into an arbitration agreement knowing full well that there is another person who is interested but leave such person out, the court may send the parties to the forum of arbitrator chosen by them, even if the other person who might be interested and whose share is not in dispute cannot be made party before the arbitrator. That was an application made under Sec. 20 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be resolved without recourse to the litigation. The suit was withdrawn accordingly on the same date. Their Lordships before whom the point relating to the maintainability of the petition was debated held that the agreement could be filed under Section 20 even though it was signed by the parties while the suit was pending. The essential condition upon which the arbitration agreement became operative was the withdrawal of the suit. The agreement had been entered into while no suit with respect to the subject-matter was pending before reference to arbitration was valid. It is obvious that that is not the case before us. Here no suit was withdrawn by the parties in order to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. In fact the suit was pending and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
