Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

that there was no. concluded contract between the parties. This plea made it necessary for the respondent to move the Court for a decision of the question about the; existence and validity- of the arbitration 'agreement. It, was on these allegations that the respondent in its petition claimed 'that it may, be held that there was a concluded contract between': the parties containing a valid arbitration agreement. The petition having been made under s. 28 along with s. 33 the respondent prayed that suitable extension of time be granted to the Arbitrators for making the, award. The appellant pleaded in defence that no concluded contract had been made between the parties and that there was no jurisdiction: in the Court to grant extension under s 28. The, other allegations made by the respondent in its petition were also traversed. On these pleadings the learned trial judge framed, appropriate issues. He found that a concluded contract had been proved, between the parties as alleged by the respodent. that there was a valid arbitration agreement in the said contract and that the Court had jurisdiction, to. try the petition. Incidentally, it may be pointed out at this stage that no specific point had been raised in the pleadings of the appellant that, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under s. 33 or. s. 32 of the Act,. In fact the trial judge has observed that it was not shown to him how the application was incompetent. Consistently with the findings recorded by him the learned trial judge declared that there was a concluded contract between the parties under which the matter was duly referred to arbitration through an arbitration agreement clause in the contract. As a result of the declaration he held that there was a valid reference to arbitration between the parties. Consequently he granted a month's time to the arbitrators to make their award. This decision was challenged by the appellant by its revision petition preferred in. the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The High Court has confirmed the finding of the trial court that there was a concluded contract which contained an arbitration agreement. The question of 'jurisdiction under s. 33 of the Act was argued before the High Court and its attention was drawn to the conflict of judicial decisions on. the point. The High Court, however, held that since the petition has been filed as a composite application under ss. 28 and 33 it was open to the Court under a. 28 to enter upon the question of the existence or validity of the contract and so there was no substance in the point of 'jurisdiction raised by the appellant. In the result the appellant's revision application was dismissed. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave ; and on his behalf Mr. Din Dayal has raised the same two points for our decision. He contends that the High Court was in error in holding that the trial court bad jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's petition, and he argues that even if the point of jurisdiction raised by him fails it should be held that there was no concluded contract between the parties and so. there was no scop or room for making any reference to arbitration. The first of these two contentions has been seriously pressed before us.