RADHESHYAM KEDIA Vs. SRINIWAS PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for consideration in this application is what is the scope of arbitration agreement dt. 28th Jan. 1981 between R.S.Kedia and Sunil Kumar Dey and Srinivas Pandit. THE relevant portion of the said arbitration agreement is set out hereinbelow :-

(2.) FOR the purpose of proper determination of the said question it is necessary to consider the facts culminating in this application. The material facts inter alia are that on or about 28th Jan. 1982 the petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered into a hire purchase agreement in writing with the respondent No. 1. In the said agreement the respondent No. 1 was termed as owner and the respondent No. 2 was termed as hirer and the petitioner was termed, as guarantor. The respondent No. 1 agreed to let on hire to the respondent No. 2 and agreed to take on hire from the respondent No. 1 one TDV motor vehicle bearing No. 692001000606 on the engine and No. 344073094472 an the chassis on inter alia the following terms and conditions :-

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the respondent 1 Radheshyam Kedia on the other hand submitted that the parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by filing statement of claim and counter-statement of claim. THE learned Advocate further submitted that the petitioner filed counter-statement of claim and appeared before the learned Arbitrator but did not raise this question as to jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. Under such circumstances the petitioner is estopped from raising this contention at the moment. THE learned Advocate further submitted that this is not such a case where the contract itself is illegal. THE parties can always proceed under such circumstances and the scope of the arbitration agreement may be enlarged by the parties themselves as has been done in this case. THE learned Advocate for the respondent further submitted that the said document dt. 28-1-81 being a commercial document Court should lean in favour of giving effect to the document and not construe it in a manner so as to invalidate the document.