Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 31 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Damodar Valley Corporation vs K. K. Kar on 12 November, 1973
14. In the present case there is no contention that there had been novation, recission or substitution or that the contract is non est. Plea is only that obligations are settled and discharged by full and final settlement. The validity, binding nature and subsistence of the contract are not in dispute. A repudiation by one party that the contract is discharged, alone will not terminate the contract when the other party says that obligations are due. That itself is a dispute arising out of or in connection with the contract. In such a case the contract will subsist at least for determination of that dispute and if obligations are there for their determination also and the arbitration clause also will survive. These principles I am following from the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, particularly those in Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta, AIR 1959 SC 1362, Damodar Valley v. K. K. Kar, AIR 1974 SC 158 and Naihati Jute Mills v. Khyalirsa, AIR 1968 SC 522. AIR 1974 SC 158 further held:
Union Of India (Uoi) vs D. Bose And Ors. on 15 February, 1980
In Union of India v. D. Bose, AIR 1981 Cal 95, a dispute regarding accord and satisfaction based on a no claim certificate by the contractor was held to be arbitrable.
Jai Chand Bhasin vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 4 March, 1983
In Jai Chand Bhasin v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Delhi 508, the question whether the claim was barred was held to be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Union Of India vs Kishorilal Gupta And Bros on 21 May, 1959
14. In the present case there is no contention that there had been novation, recission or substitution or that the contract is non est. Plea is only that obligations are settled and discharged by full and final settlement. The validity, binding nature and subsistence of the contract are not in dispute. A repudiation by one party that the contract is discharged, alone will not terminate the contract when the other party says that obligations are due. That itself is a dispute arising out of or in connection with the contract. In such a case the contract will subsist at least for determination of that dispute and if obligations are there for their determination also and the arbitration clause also will survive. These principles I am following from the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, particularly those in Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta, AIR 1959 SC 1362, Damodar Valley v. K. K. Kar, AIR 1974 SC 158 and Naihati Jute Mills v. Khyalirsa, AIR 1968 SC 522. AIR 1974 SC 158 further held:
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pearey Lal Kumar And Another on 25 February, 1952
In R. G. Insurance Co. v. Pearey Lal, AIR 1952 SC 119, it was laid down that the test to decide whether a dispute is arbitrable is the necessity of recourse to the contract by which the parties are bound for determining the matter in dispute. If such recourse is necessary the matter will come within the scope of the arbitrator's jurisdiction. In that case the dispute was whether the claim for arbitration was within or beyond the period fixed in the arbitration clause. It was held that it is also a matter within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In the present case also when one party raises a dispute in spite of the repudiation by the other, the question whether there is a dispute and if so the further question whether the claim will stand and if so to what extent could be decided only by the arbitrator.
1