RANJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in Suit No. 3778192 against the order of the learned Single Judge in IA No. 5086193 dated 22-2-95 whereby the learned Single Judge granted stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 1940.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: THE appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of plot No. 37172, Punjabi Bagh. New Delhi measuring 1322 sq. yds. She entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent M/s. Delhi Polymers and Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. on 7-7-1987 (hereinafter called the builders') for construction of a group housing residential complex on the plot for a total consideration of Rs. 26 lakhs. According to her. she received Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of signing the agreement and the balance of Rs. 19 lakhs was payable in 60 days of the signing of the agreement or sanction of building plans by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, whichever was-earlier and balance of Rs. 2 lakhs was to be paid within 2 and half years of the agreement or at the time of handing over of the plot to the buyers, whichever was earlier. Ths builder was to construct flats within 2 and half years and give possession to the buyers and pay balance of Rs. 2 lakhs to appellants.

(3.) WE shall first deal with the meaning of the word 'effect' used in the clause. In Printers (Mys) Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Joseph (AIR 1960 SC 1156 (at 1160) (.2) the language used in the arbitration clause was that "if on the interpretation or application of the contract" any difference of opinion arose, the same should be referred to arbitration. It was construed that the word "application of the contract" must, in the context, mean the "working out of the contract or giving effect to its terms". Gajendragadkar, J. ('as then was) observed: