1968 (11) TMI 114 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed Upholding Lower Court's Decision on Stay Application Under Indian Arbitration Act

The appeal was dismissed as the Court upheld the lower court's decision to refuse a stay under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court ... - Issues:1. Refusal to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.2. Jurisdiction of the Court in granting a stay.3. Application for filing a written statement affecting the stay application.4. Interpretation of Section 34 regarding the timing of filing a written statement.Analysis:Issue 1: Refusal to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940The appeal was against an order refusing to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The suit involved a charter party agreement with an arbitration clause. The Court noted that the suit included claims against both the principal debtor and the guarantor, with no arbitration agreement regarding the guarantor. The Court expressed concerns about conflicting findings if the liability of the principal debtor was determined both in the suit and in arbitration. The Court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that the discretion to grant a stay should be exercised judiciously based on the circumstances of the case.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court in granting a stayThe Court clarified that an arbitration agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court but allows the Court to decide based on the agreement. However, the Court retains discretion in granting a stay. The Court emphasized that in this case, the discretion was exercised judiciously, agreeing with the lower court's reasoning for refusing the stay. The Court also dismissed arguments challenging the existence of the guarantor and the authority of the person signing the plaint, stating that such contentions were irrelevant in an application under Section 34.Issue 3: Application for filing a written statement affecting the stay applicationAfter the judgment was delivered, the appellant's counsel requested time to file a written statement. The Court noted that such a request could affect the application for a stay under Section 34. The Court directed expeditious hearing and further proceedings in the suit while acknowledging the impact of filing a written statement on the arbitration process.Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 34 regarding the timing of filing a written statementThe Court addressed a preliminary point regarding the timing of filing a written statement in relation to a stay application under Section 34. It discussed precedents and the requirement for the party seeking a stay to remain ready and willing to proceed with arbitration. The Court highlighted that filing a written statement after the disposal of the stay application could impact the intention to abide by the arbitration agreement. The Court upheld the validity of the preliminary point raised, emphasizing the importance of readiness and willingness to proceed with arbitration.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded. The operation of the order was stayed for six weeks from the date of the judgment. Both judges agreed on the decision.