Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Sections 32 and 34 of the Arbitration Act may now be noticed. Section reads:

"Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force, no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, not shall any arbitration agreement or award be enforced, set aside, amended, modified or in any way affected otherwise than as provided in this Act."

Section 34 reads :

"Where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the agreement or any person claiming under him in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may, at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings; and if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that the applicant was, at the time when the proceedings were commenced, and still remain, ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration, such authority may make an order staying the proceedings."

15. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant may now be referred to.

16. Printers (Mys.) Private Ltd. v. P. Joseph, wherein the Supreme Court held (para 7) :

"Section 34 of the Act confers power on the Court to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement subject to the conditions specified in the section. The conditions thus specified are satisfied in the present case but the section clearly contemplates that even though there is an arbitration agreement and the requisite conditions specified by it are satisfied the Court may nevertheless refuse to grant stay if it is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement. In other words, the power to stay legal proceedings is discretionary and so, a party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings have been commenced cannot by relying on the arbitration agreement claim the stay of legal proceedings in a court as a matter of right. It is, however, clear that the discretion vested in the Court must be properly and judicially exercised. Ordinarily where a dispute between the parties has by agreement between them to be referred to the decision of a domestic tribunal the Court would direct the parties to go before the tribunal of their choice and stay the legal proceedings instituted before it by one of them. As in other matters of judicial discretion, so in the case of the discretion conferred on the Court by Section 34 it would be difficult, and it is indeed inexpedient to lay down any inflexible rules which should govern the exercise of the said discretion. No test can indeed be laid down the automatic application of which will help the solution of the problem of the exercise of judicial discretion. (As was observed by Bowen, L. J. in Gardner v. Jay, (1885) 29 Ch D 50 at p. 58), "that discretion like other judicial discretion must be exercised according to common sense and according to justice."

In T. Premakumar v. R. Anjaneyulu, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 255 it has been held (para 9) :

"Section 34 of the Arbitration Act vests power in the Court to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement. Any party to an arbitration agreement may avail himself of the right to obtain stay of legal proceedings, provided the requirements of that section are satisfied. He may "at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings" apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings. The Court or such authority may if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred to in accordance with the arbitration agreement and finds that the applicant at the time when the proceedings were commenced and also still remains, ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration, stay the proceedings. If the party to the arbitration agreement does not make the application for stay under S. 34 before filing the written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, then he has no right to seek stay of proceedings. The application has to be made before any step is taken in the proceedings. That is a condition precedent to be satisfied for the exercise of the right to apply for stay of proceedings.:

In VOC Industrial Workers Co-operative Housing Society v. M. Karuppuswami, it has been held (at p. 93) :

"The position in law would seem to have been the same under the law relating to arbitration before the Arbitration Act of 1940 was enacted. Cases had arisen before Courts in India in regard to stay of suits under para 18 of the second schedule to the Civil P. C. It has been held that if arbitration becomes impossible for any reason, the Court ought to proceed to decide the suit itself. It has also been held that the stay order may be discharged if the parties are unable to obtain a satisfactory arbitrator or to bring the arbitration proceedings to a satisfactory and speedy conclusion - See Laxman v. Manjunath, (AIR 1921 Bom 458 : Bhava Chattagir v. Matanomal, (1909) 4 Ind Cas 359, 361 (Sind); Kishinchand v. Ramchand, AIR 1937 Sind 247 and Shasimukhi v. Parbaty Sunkar, (AIR 1919 Cal 295). The power to discharge a stay order and to get on with the suit sometimes traced in some decisions with the inherent powers of the Court is saved by Section 151, C. P. C. In England also the procedure, is available whereby the parties to an arbitration agreement who had once obtained an order of stay of the suit between them from the Court may move the same Court for getting the stay vacated on finding that the arbitration has not borne fruit. (See Kruger Townwear Ltd. v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd., (1953) 1 WLR 1049). It, therefore, seems to be that the Court does have jurisdiction to discharge an order so stay made by it earlier under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act."