JONSONS RUBBER INDUSTRIES Vs. GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,33,875.02 against the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the Controller of Stores, Calcutta, being the Defendants herein. The Plaintiff had submitted its Tender dated 26.12.1992, The dispute that has arisen between the parlies pertains to whether the Plaintiffs offer was inclusive of Excise Duty. On notice being issued to Defendants, an application purporting to be under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by them. In substance the application states that, although this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the cause of action had arisen in Calcutta, where the Defendants have their Office, the Agreement between the parlies contained an Arbitration Clause. This Clause 2900 has been reproduced in the application itself.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has strenuously resisted the application. It is his contention that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not applicable between the partics since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the 1996 Act') is the statute that would govern the possible disputes between them. The second ground urged by way of opposition to the application is that it should have been accompanied by the original Arbitration Agreement or a duly certified copy thereof as envisaged in Section 8(2) of 1996 Act, and that this is a mandatory requirement as is obvious from a bare reading thereof. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the Plaintiff that correct interpretation of this Section would cast a compulsory obligation on the Defendants to set out the substance of the disputes between them in the application ilself. Since none of these three requirements have been fulfilled the application deserves dismissal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Applicant has denied that there is any substance in these contentions. Since that the Arbitration Clause on which the application is predicated has been duly reproduced verbatim and in extenso in the application itself, there has been substantial and sufficient compliance with provisions of the Section. Having incorporated the Arbitration Clause in the application itself, the Defendants are not required to file a copy of the Arbitration Clause or the Contract in which it is contained. Learned counsel for Defendants further contended that it is a settled position of law that even if a wrong provision has been mentioned in the application, this mistake would not' preclude the Court from applying the correct provision of law. He has also disputed the correctness of the interpretation given to Section 8 of the 1996 Act by learned counsel for the Plaintiff and that the words "substance of. dispute" does not mandate that the disputes that have arisen between the parties should be spelt out in the application itself. The purpose of the application is to draw the attention of the court to the fact that, since the parties have agreed to a resolution of their disputes through arbitration, the Plaintiff should not be allowed to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the Court for this very purpose.