- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sh. Villayati Ram Mittal v. Union Of India And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition was filed under Sections 8 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking (a) filing of the agreement and (b) appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner alleged that it entered into a contract with the respondents for the construction of the "Load Despatch Centre for N.R.E.B. at Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi" which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose, and the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief Engineer, Construction Zone, Central Works Department, New Delhi requesting appointment of an arbitrator; a copy of that letter was annexed to the petition as an annexure.
The respondents contested the petition, contending inter alia that the petition was not legally maintainable because it did not specify the disputes between the parties in the body of the petition. A preliminary issue was framed: "Is the petition as framed legally maintainable?"
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is legally maintainable where the petition itself does not set out the disputes/differences but refers to and attaches a separate notice/letter alleging items in dispute.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner relied on the fact that a copy of the letter requiring the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator was annexed as Annexure-7 (referred to in para 6 of the petition) and expressly sought that such annexure be treated as part of the pleadings.
- The petitioner pointed to assertions in its replication that the attached copy of the letter should be read as part of the pleadings.
- The petitioner also relied on a Division Bench judgment (Union of India v. Vijay Construction Co., 1981 Rajdhani LB 215 : AIR 1981 Delhi 193) as supportive authority.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because it did not itself specify the disputes/differences arising between the parties in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
- Respondents relied upon the judgment of Mr. Justice Sultan Singh in Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd., AIR 1979 Delhi 220, which held that disputes must be pleaded in the petition itself and that documents attached cannot be taken as part of the pleadings for purposes of Section 20.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd., AIR 1979 Delhi 220 (Mr. Justice Sultan Singh) | That a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act must itself plead and specify the disputes/differences; documents or notices attached to the petition cannot be read as part of the pleadings to supply those necessary allegations. | The court treated this authority as binding and applied its principle directly: finding no distinction between that case and the present facts, the court held that the present petition was not maintainable for failure to plead the disputes in the petition itself, and thus dismissed the petition. |
| Union of India v. Vijay Construction Co., 1981 Rajdhani LB 215 : AIR 1981 Delhi 193 | The judgment was cited by the petitioner, but the opinion records that the point actually involved in that authority related to limitation rather than the question whether disputes had been pleaded in the petition under Section 20. | The court held that this authority did not assist the petitioner on the maintainability point because the issue before that Division Bench was limitation and not the requirement to plead disputes in the petition under Section 20. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court identified the core preliminary issue—whether the petition as framed was legally maintainable—and analyzed the parties' submissions in light of binding precedent.
First, the court considered the respondents' reliance on the decision of Mr. Justice Sultan Singh (Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh). That decision was understood to lay down unequivocally that a petition under Section 20 must contain pleadings of the disputes/differences themselves and that recourse to attached documents or notices to supply those allegations is impermissible.
The petitioner attempted to distinguish that authority by pointing out that, in the present petition, the letter requesting appointment of an arbitrator was annexed (Annexure-7) and it was specifically stated that the annexure should be taken as part of the pleadings; the replication also asserted that the annexed copy should be read as part of the pleadings. The petitioner further relied on the Union of India v. Vijay Construction Co. decision.
The court rejected the attempt to distinguish. It observed that in the Sultan Singh case a copy of the notice together with a list of disputes had similarly been attached and referred to in the petition, yet the court there held that such attachments could not be treated as part of the pleadings and that the petition must itself contain the disputes. On that basis the present case was not distinguishable.
The court also considered the Union of India decision and concluded that it concerned limitation and did not address the maintainability question under Section 20; therefore it provided no assistance to the petitioner on the issue at hand.
Because the Sultan Singh authority was binding, the court resolved the preliminary issue in favour of the respondents and found the petition to be not legally maintainable.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The court dismissed the petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as not legally maintainable for failure to plead the disputes/differences in the petition itself.
Consequences and immediate effects:
- The main petition was dismissed on the basis that disputes were not pleaded in the petition as required under Section 20.
- Interlocutory Application No. 1373 of 1981, by which a temporary injunction had been issued, was also dismissed and the injunction previously granted was vacated.
The opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications beyond the application of the cited authority; no new principle of law was announced by this judgment beyond applying the precedent that a petition under Section 20 must itself plead the disputes.
Petition dismissed.
The present petition is under Sections 8 and 20 of Indian Arbitration Act 1940 for filing of agreement and making an appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The petitioner, as he alleges, entered into a contract with the respondents for construction of “Construction of Load Despatch Centre for N.R.E.B at Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi.” There was an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is alleged by the petitioner that disputes arose on account of which he sent a letter to the Chief Engineer Construction Zone Central Works Department New Delhi to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. He has attached a copy of the letter as annexure along with the petition.
3. The petition was contested by the respondents. They inter alia pleaded that the petition was not legally maintainable because it did not detail disputes which had arisen between the parties. Following preliminary issue was framed:—
1. Is the petition as framed legally maintainable?
4. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a judgment of Mr. Justice Sultan Singh in Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd. AIR 1979 Delhi 220. It is laid down that if disputes are not mentioned in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act same is not maintainable. In that case also it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a notice dated 22nd April, 1975 was served upon the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent together with items in dispute and requiring appointment of arbitrator. Copy of that notice was attached with the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in that case. It was held that the said documents could not be taken as part of the pleadings and that disputes between the parties must be specified in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act itself. Following observations were made in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment:—
“Without pleadings the petitioner is not entitled to allege what are the disputes which it seeks to refer to the arbitrator I, therefore, hold that in the absence of allegations of disputes in the petition no reference can be made to the arbitrator.
Section 20 (1) of the Arbitration Act requires that when differences have arisen between the parties to the agreement then the same may be subject matter of a petition under Section 20 of the Act. The Court has to determine whether the differences arising between the parties are covered by the agreement. I am, thus, of the view that pleadings of disputes or differences is necessary in a petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. In the absence of such a pleading, the application cannot be said to be in accordance with law. I, therefore, hold that non-pleading of the disputes in the petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act is sufficient ground for dismissal of the application.”
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said authority is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case copy of the letter requiring the Chief Engineer to appoint arbitrator has been annexed as Annexure-7 (mentioned in para 6 of the petition) and it has been specifically mentioned that such an annexure be taken as part of pleadings which was not the case before Justice Sultan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon assertions in the replication that said copy of the letter should be read as part of the pleadings. Learned counsel contended that it was not the case before Mr. Justice Sultan Singh, However, to my mind there is no point of distinction. There also copy of the notice, alone with which there was list of disputes, was attached with the petition and the same had been referred to in the petition itself. It was unequivocally laid down (see portion to reproduce above) that disputes must be mentioned in the petition under Section 20 itself and no other document can be locked into for finding out disputes.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in Union of India v. Vijay Construction Co. 1981 Rajdhani LB 215 : (AIR 1981 Delhi 193). It is contended by the learned counsel that in that case also disputes were not detailed in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. However, it is clear from the judgment itself that the point whether disputes bad been mentioned in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act or not and whether such a petition was legally maintainable or not was not involved. Only point involved was one of limitation. Hence that authority is of no help to the learned counsel.
7. In view of the aforesaid authority of Mr. Justice Sultan Singh of this court which is binding I decide the issue in favour of the respondent. As a result of this finding the present petition is dismissed. On the basis of I.A No. 1373 of 1981 a temporary injunction was issued. That application is also dismissed in view of the fall of the main petition and the injunction already granted is vacated.
Petition dismissed.
Alert