STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. RAMKRISHNA KULWANTRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the judgment and order dated March 24, 1981 passed by the learned 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta is under challenge.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit inter alia challenging the action of the appellants with respect to certain matters arising out of a contract which also included a clause for reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration. Actually before the suit had been filed, the reference to arbitration in terms of the aforesaid arbitration agreement had already been made and the arbitration proceedings were in vague. The plaintiff, therefore, apart from challenging certain actions of the appellant before us (defendant in the suit) also prayed for terminating, determining and setting aside the arbitration proceedings, apart from determining the effect, validity and existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties. The learned Court below vide the impugned order stayed the arbitration proceedings pending disposal of the suit. This Court on July 20, 1981 in the present appeal stayed the operation of the aforesaid impugned order and permitted continuance of the arbitration proceedings, but with a rider that final Award as passed by the Arbitrator shall not be filed in the Court. It appears that against the aforesaid order passed by this Court on July 20, 1981 the respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide order dated December 12, 1992 in S.L.P. No. 2460 of 1993 disposed of the petition by upholding order passed by this Court on July 20, 1981.

(3.) Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to Ground No. V in the Memorandum of Appeal wherein it has clearly been mentioned that prior to filing of the suit in the Court below wherefrom the impugned order has arisen, the plaintiff-respondent had filed an application under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking determination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, but, this Court vide judgment and order dated May 31, 1974 had dismissed the application on contest and had directed the learned Arbitrator to proceed with arbitration.