C G THORBORG PLATANVEJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 83-D/62 and Civil Revision No. 580-D/61, which have arisen out of the same application, under section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by Basakha Singh Wallenborg Private Ltd. and Shri C. G. Thorborg, against the Union of India, Shri Arthur Nielson, Rai Bahadur Sardar Basakha Singh and Sardar Daya Singh. The aforesaid parties have been hereinafter referred to, respectively, as applicant No. 1, applicant No. 2, respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4. The application was filed by Shri Rajinder Singh, attorney of applicant No. 2. The allegations, relevant for the decision of the points, involved in the F.A.O. and the revision, were as under :

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 had set up a housing factory for the purpose of manufacturing prefabricated houses. The factory was known as Government Housing Factory. The venture proved a failure and respondent No. 1 was keen to join hands with some company who would possess technical know-how and a reasonable amount of capital to run the factory. Shri Harry Wallenborg and respondent No. 2 joined hands together and negotiated terms and conditions with respondent No. 1 to run the housing factory in collaboration. It was agreed between respondent No. 293 1, on the one hand and respondent No. 3. and Shri Harry Wallenborg, on the other, that Shri Harry Wallenborg and respondent No. 3 would float a private limited company under the name of Basakha Singhow-how for operating the Hindustan Housing Factory. The Directors of Basakha Singh Wallenborg Ltd, were respondent No. 3 and his nominee, respondent No. 4, applicant No. 2 and his nominee, respondent No. 2. RESPONDENT No. I did not fully cooperate for procuring orders and in various other matters and declined to provide nances. As a result. the Hindustan Housing Factory ran under heavy losses and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, acting in the name of applicant No. 1, handed back the factory to respondent No. 1. This was done without the consent of applicant No. 2 and respondent No. 2. RESPONDENTs Nos. 3 and 4 had no authority to hand back the factory to respondent No. 1. They had done so in order to cause substantial injury to applicants Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 2. Thus disputes had arisen between applicant No. 1, on the one hand, and respondent No. 1, on the other, and according to the agreement of arbitration, those disputes are to be referred to arbitration. It was prayed that the agreement of arbitration may be ordered to be filed and the disputes may be referred to arbitration.

(3.) IT is clear from the above that applicant No. 2 had ratified the filing of the application by Shri Rajinder Singh and actions done by him in that behalf. The subsequent ratification will relate back to the date on which the application was signed and verified. Even if it be assumed that Ex. A/1 did not authorise Shri Rajinder Singh to file an application under section 20 of the Act, the subsequent ratification made the filing of the application, on behalf of applicant No. 2, valid from the date, on which it was filed.