Bench:
Shah, J.C.
Appellant:
J. B. Dadachanji
Respondent:
C. B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal
Issue
- Due to disputes in the agreement, arbitration proceedings were conducted, where the award was challenged.
Facts
- Three contracts, which were similar to each other, were made for supplying stone ballast to Uttar Pradesh’s government by the appellants.
- They were each different and made at different times.
- All the three contracts contained the clause that if disputes arise from these particular contracts, they shall be resolved through arbitration under the Arbitration and conciliation Act. The arbitrator appointed in the clause was the superintending engineer of the circle.
Appellant’s contentions
- According to the contract, the appellants supplied the material.
- Then, when the dispute arose, the appellants refused the jurisdiction of the Superintendent, but when the arbitrator gave and filed the award, the appellants challenged saying that they had already performed the contract.
- They held that the award was invalid due to the proceeding not following Article 20 of the Arbitration Act.
- Appellants filed for appeal for a certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
- They appealed to the High court of Allahabad.
Respondent’s contentions
- They stated that the other party had not performed their part.
- The respondents said that the High court did not have the right to grant certificates.
Relevant paragraphs from the original judgement
- An order is final if it amounts to a final decision relating to the rights of the parties in dispute in the civil proceeding. If after the order, the civil proceeding still remains to be tried and the rights in dispute between the parties have to be determined, the order is not a final order within the meaning of Article 133. The High Court assumed that a certificate of fitness to appeal to this court may be issued under S. 109(1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the order is not final, and in support of that view, they relied upon the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in V. M. Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim & Sons (1). But Section 109 of the Code is now made expressly subject to Chapter IV, Part V of the Constitution and Article 133 (1) (c) which occurs in that chapter authorizes the grant of a certificate by the High Court, only if the order is a final order. The inconsistency between S.109 Civil Procedure Code and Article 133 of the Constitution has now been removed by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 66 of 1955.
Final Decision
The High Court stated that they did have the jurisdiction to grant such orders to prevent abuse of power by the State and vacated the certificate of fitness of the appellants and their appeal was dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
