Holding

The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the award and the award must be filed in the Supreme Court.

Summary

The parties entered into a building contract containing an arbitration clause. After a series of applications and a change of arbitrator, the Supreme Court appointed the final arbitrator and gave directions for the conduct of the arbitration. The arbitrator made an award on 11 November 1977 and, on advice of a court officer, filed it in the Delhi High Court. The respondent sought a declaration that, under sections 14(2) and 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award must be filed in the Supreme Court, which had made the reference, and that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court examined the definitions of "court" in section 2(c), the non‑obstante clause in section 31(4), and the scheme of sections 14 and 31, concluding that the court to which an application in the reference is first made retains exclusive jurisdiction over all subsequent proceedings, including filing the award. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that it alone had jurisdiction to entertain the award and ordered the award to be filed in the Supreme Court. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court, having made the reference and subsequent directions, retains exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Interpretation of section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and its non‑obstante effect on the jurisdiction to file the award.
Whether filing the award in the Delhi High Court would deprive the appellant of its right of appeal under the Letters Patent and Article 136.
Whether the definition of "court" in section 2(c) includes appellate courts for the purpose of filing the award.

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1940s. 11, s. 14(2), s. 20, s. 2(c), s. 31(1), s. 31(2), s. 31(3), s. 31(4), s. 41, s. 5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Subjects

arbitrationjurisdictionaward filingArbitration Act 1940exclusive jurisdictionSupreme Courtsection 31(4)section 14(2)appeal rightscivil procedure

Judgment

A 842

GURU NANAK FOUNDATION
v.

8 RATTAN SINGH & SONS

September 29, 1981

[D.A. DESAI AND A.P. SEN, JJ.]

c Jurisdiction of the competent court, when the Supreme Court is seisin of the
proceedings, to entertain the Award-Scope of sections 2 (c}, 14 (2), 31 (4)
and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Disputes having arisen between the parties to a building contract dated 4th
April, 1972, an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in terms of
clause 47 of the Arbitration Agreement, numbered as Suit No. 400(A) of 1974
D was filed in the Delhi High Court. By its order dated August 14, 1974, the High
Court appointed the 2nd Respondent Sri M. C. Nanda, retited Chief Engineer,
C.P.W.D. as the sole arbitrator. When the reference was pending, a petition
number O.M.P. 133/1969 was moved by the appellant, under sections 5 and 11
of the Act, for the removal of the arbitrator and appointment of another in his
place. The petition was dismissed, but in the appeal by special leave (Civil
•
Appeal No. 17/1977) the Supreme Court made an order dated January 5, 1977,
E wherein by consent of parties 3rd respondent Sri O. P. Mallick, retired Chief
Engineer, C.P.W.D., was appointed as the sole arbitrator. Since the 3rd respon-
dent after entering into arbitration directed the parties to file fresh pleadings indi-
cating that he desired to commence the arbitration proceediog afresh, another
C.M.P. No.1088/77 "'as filed in the Supreme Court whereupon suitable directiona
were given to proceed from the stage at which Sri Nanda left. A further appli-
cation No. 526(A)/77 was moved, this time before the High Court for consider-
F ing the counter claim but it was dismissed as the first respondent who did ques-
tion the jurisdictional aspect earlier, agreed to the issue being included in the
reference. Thereafter, the arbitrator made an Award on November 11, 1977.
The Ist respondent by his letter datea November 17, 1977, requested the 3rd res-
pondent arbitrator to file or cause to be filed the award along with pleadings and
documents before the Supreme Court.

The 3rd responGent acting on the advice tendered by an officer of the
G Supreme Court filed the award in the Delhi High Court and informed the par~
ties. The 1st respondent moved C.M.P. No. 14079 of 1977 in the Supreme
Court seeking a declaration that the award has to be filed in the Supreme Court
in view of provisions contained in section 14 (2) read \Vith section 31 (4) of the
Act and for a direction that the award be collected from Delhi High Court and
be filed before the Supreme Court and notice of the filing of the award b~ issued
H to the parties.
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH 843

The appellant filed a counter affidavit and contested the petition inter alia A
contending that Delhi High Court would be the court within the meaning of
section 14 (2) in which award ought to have been and has rightly been filed. It
was contended that if the Court withdrew the proceedings to itself, the appellant
would be denied the valuable right of appeal under the letters patent and a fur-
ther appeal to the Suprem~ Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Allowing the C.M.P. No. 14079 of 1977, the Court, B
HELD 1. The Supreme Court is the court having exclusive jurisdiction
wherein the Award dated November ll, 1977 should be filed. [857 CJ

1 : 1. On a pure grammatical construction as well as taking harmonious
and overall view of the various provisions contained in the Act it is crystal clear
that ordinarily that court will have jurisdiction to deal with the questions arising
c
under the Act, except the one in Chapter IV, in which a suit with regard to the
dispute involved in the arbitration would' be required to be filed under the pro-
visions of the Code of Civ ii Procedure. However, where an application is made
in any reference to a court competent to entertain it, that court alone will have
I
jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications
arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall have to be D
made in that court alone and in no other court. [852 G-H, 853 A-B]

• l : 2. The expression "court" as defined in section 2(c) will have to be
adhered to unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context in which
it is used. The expression i"court" as used in section 21 of the Act includes the
"appellate court" because appellate proceedings are generally recognised as
continuation of the suit"'. The expression "court" used in section 14(2), there- E
fore, will have to be understood in this background. Incorporating the defini-
tion of the expression "court" as set out in section 2(c), in sub-section (1) of
section 31 would mean that the award will have to filed in that ctJurt in which
the suit in respect of the dispute involved in the award would have been required
to be filed. The provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 14 will not be
rendered otiose. [851 A-B, D-E, 852 F ]
F
Ct. A. Ct. Nacchiappa Chettiar & Others v. Ct.A. Ct. Subramanium Chettiar,
[1960] 2 SCR 209, followed.

I : 4. The Scheme disclosed in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 31
clearly indicates that to the exclusion of all other courts only one court will have
jurisdictton to deal with the proceedings incidental to the reference and the
arbitration. Sub-section (3) clearly points in this direction when it provides that G
aU applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise
arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the court wherein the award has
been or may be filed and to no other court. The opening non-obstante clause
of sub-section (4) excludes anything anywhere contained in the whole Act or in
any other law for the time being in force if it is contrary to or inconsistent with
the substantive provision contained in sub-section (4). To that extent it carves out H
an exception to the general question of jurisdiction of the court in which award
may be filed elsewhere provided in the Act in respect of the proceedings referred
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A to in sub-section (4). This provision will have an over-riding effect in re]ation
to the filing of the award if the conditions therein µrescribed are satisfied. If
those conditions are satisfied the court other than the one envisaged in section
14 (2) or section 31 (I) will be the court in which award will have to be filed.
That is the effect of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (4) of section 31.
Sub-section l4) thus invests exclusive jurisdiction in the court, to which an appli-
cation has been made in any reference and which that court is competent to
B entertain as the court having jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all
subsequent applications arising out of reference and the arbitration proceedings
shall have to be made in that court and in no other court. Thus sub·
section (4) not only confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to which an appli.
cation is made in any reference but simultaneously ousts the jurisdiction of any
other court which may as well have jurisdiction in this behalf. [851 E.H, 852A-C]

c 2. A proceedings earlier to reference in a Court wouldnot clothe that court
with such jurisdiction as to render the provision contained in section 31 (4) otiose.
[858 D·B]

Also the subsequent application made by the appe1lant before the Delhi
High Court, which was dismissed after the 1st respondent's challenge to the
jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court upon compromise between the parties enlar-
D ging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by consent, cannot give the Delhi High
Court any control over the arbitration proceedings. In view of the fact that a
reference was made by this Court to the 3rd respondent and that this Court gave
further direction about the manner and method of conducting the arbitration
proceedings and fixed the time for completion of arbitration proceedings, the
Supreme Court alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the award. [854 C,E.F]
E
State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd., [1972] 3 SCR
233; followed.

Kumbha Maw}i v. Union of India, [1953] SCR 878, distinguished.

F 3. If the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Award and the
Supreme Court in view of section 31 (4) alone has jurisdiction for entertaining
the award meaning that the award has to be filed in the Supreme Court alone l
and no other, the same cannot be defeated by a specious plea that the right of
appeal would be denied. In the instant case, the door of the Supreme Court is
not being closed. In fact the door is being held wide ajaf for him to raise all
contentions which one can raise in a proceeding in an originating summons.
[858 F·G, 859 A-B]
G
Garikapalli Vteraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury~ rt957] SCR 488, explained.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Saith and Skelton (P} Ltd., [1972] 3 SCR
233, followed.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTION Civil Misc. Petitions Nos.
14079 & 14078 of 1977.
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 845

IN A
Civil Appeal No. 17 Of 1977

From the judgment and order dated the 11th December, 1975
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in O.M.P. No. 133 of 1975.
B
R.S. Narula and Har bans Singh for the Petitioner.

S.C. Wattal, R.C. Wattal, C.R. Somasekharan and T.V.S.N.
Chari for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
DESAI, J. Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive
court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative forum,
less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes
avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act,
1940 ('Act' for short). However, the way in which the proceedings D
under the Act are conducted and without an exception challenged
in C:iurts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep.
Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the
proceedings under the Act have become highly technical accom ·
panied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap
to the unwary. Informal forum chosen by the parties for expedi- E
tious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the Courts
been clothed with 'legalese' of unforseeable complexity. This case
amply demonstrates the same.

A contract dated 4th April, 1972 for construction of a
F
building was entered into between the appellant and the I st
, respondent. Clause 47 of this contract incorporated an arbitration
agreement between the parties. The differences and disputes having
arisen between the parties to the contract, the I st respondent
moved an application numbered as Suit No. 400 (A) of 1974 in the
Delhi High Court under section 20 of the Act seeking a direction
G
calling upon the appellant to file the arbitration agreement in the
court and for a further direction to refer the disputes and the
differences covered by the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator to
be appointed by the Court. Ry the order dated August 14, 1974
the High Court appointed the 2nd respondent Shri M.L. Nanda,
retired Chief Engineer, CPWD as the sole arbitrator to examine
H
the differences and the disputes between the parties and to make an
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] I s.c.R.

A award in respect of them. When the reference was pending before
the arbitrator, a petition No. OMP 133 of 1975 was moved by the
appellant in Delhi High Court seeking directions purporting to be
under sections 5 and 11 of the Act for the removal of the 2nd
respondent as arbitrator. This petition made by the appellant
failed as per the order dated December 23, 1975. The appellant
B having been aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition moved a
special leave petition (Civil) No. 882 of 1976 in this Court
questioning the correctness of the dismissal of the petition for
removal of the arbitrator. The special leave petition came up

c
before a bench of this Court. Special leave to appeal was granted
and Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1977 arising out of the special leave
petition was beard by a three-judges bench of this Court. Khanna,
•
J. speaking for the Court made an order dated January 5, 1977
wherein by the consent of the parties the 2nd respondent Shri
M.L. Nanda was removed as arbitrator .and the 3rd respondent
Shri C.P. Malik retired Chief Engineer, CPWD was appointed as
the sole arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties. Usual
D direction for the remuneration of the arbitrator was made. The
3rd respondent was directed to commence the arbitration proceedings
within 15 days from the date of the order of the court and to ,,
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

It appears that the 3rd respondent after entering into arbitra-
E tion directed the parties to file fresh pleadings indicating that he
desired to commence the arbitration proceedings afresh which
would imply that the pleadings filed before the former arbitrator and
the evidence led before him were to be ignored. The first respondent
moved an application numbered as CMP No. 1088 of 1977 in this
Court inter alia praying for a relief that the 3rd respondent should
F commence the arbitration proceedings from the stage where it was
left by the 2nd respondent. In other words the 1st respondent
prayed in the petition· that the pleadings before the former arbitrator l
as well as evidence recorded by him shall be treated as part of the
proceedings before the 3rd respondent.
G After hearing both the parties, this Court made the following
order. As it has some impact on the outcome of this petition, it is
reproduced in extenso :

"C.M.P. No. 1088/77: We have heard counsel on
H both sides. It is absolutely plain that the new a1bitrator
GURU NANAK FOUNDA rlON v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 847

in tune with the spirit of the order passed by this Court A
should proceed with speed to conclude the arbitration
proceedings. In the earlier directions by this Court it had
been stated that the proceedings should commence within
15 days and that the arbitrator "shall try to dispose of the
same as expeditiously as possible." We direct the arbitrator,
bearing in mind the concurrence of the counsel on both 8
sides, that he shall conclude the proceedings within four
months from today.

A grievance is made that the arbitrator is calling for
fresh pleadings which may perhaps be otiose since pleadings
have already been filed by both sides before the earlier c
arbitrator Mr. Nanda. If any supplementary statement is
to be filed it is certainly open to the parties to pursuade
the arbitrator to receive them in one week from today.
The arbitrator will remember that already some evidence
has been collected and he is only to consider and conclude.
With this directive we dispose of the application." D

Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the 3rd respondent
commenced the arbitration proceedings from the stage where the
same was left by the previous arbitrator. He gave opportunity to the
parties to place before him supplementary pleadings if any, as well
as additional evidence if any. He also examined some witnesses. E

When the arbitration proceedings were pending before the
3rd respondent, the appellant moved an application numbered as
Suit No. 526 (A) of 1977 in Delhi High Court praying for a relief
that the counter claim of the appellant against the first respondent be
also covered by the terms of reference and an award be made in that
F
behalf. The first respondent questioned the jurisdiction o'· Delhi
High Court to entertain the application on the ground that the
Supreme Court alone is in seisin of the matter, and that court alone
has jurisdiction to give directions in the reference. Wiser counsel
prevailed with the parties. The first respondent amicably agreed
to permit the arbitrator to examine the counter claim, if any, made
G
by the appellant against the 1st respondent. In view of this private
agreement between the parties, application bearing number Suit
No. 526 (A} of 1977 filed by the appellant was dismissed by Delhi
High Court. Thereafter the arbitrator made his award on H
November 11, 1977 and on the same day served a notice on the
parties to the proceedings intimating that the arbitrator has made
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] l S.C.R.

A the award. The !st respondent by his letter dated November 17,
1977 requested the 3rd respondent arbitrator to file or cause to be
filed the award alongwith pleadings and documents before the
Supreme Court.

It appears that the 3rd respondent arbitrator approached the
8 Registry of the Supreme Court for filing of award when he was
advised by an officer of this Court that the award should be filed in
Delhi High Court. Pursuant to this advice the 3rd respondent filed
the award in Delhi High Court and informed the !st respondent
accordingly. Thereupon the 1st respondent moved this petition
seeking a declaration that the award has to be filed in this Court in
c view of provisions contained in section 14 (2) read with section 31
(4) of the Act and for a direction that the award be collected from
Delhi High Court and be filed before this Court and notice of the
filing of the award be issued to the parties. In seeking this relief
the I st respondent contended in the petition that the reference was
made to the arbitrator by this Court; that further directions were
D given by this Court and this Court has seisin of the matter and there·
fore this Court alone has jurisdiction •o entertain the award in view
of the provisions contained in section 31 (4) of the Act.

During the pendency of this petition, by an order in C.M.P.
No. 14078 of 1977, the ·proceedings before Delhi High Court were
stayed.

The appellant filed a counter-affidavit and contested the
petition inter a/ia contending that Delhi High Court would be the
Courc within the meaning of section 14 (2) in which award ought to
have been and has rightly been filed. It was contended that if the
F court withdrew the proceedings to itself, the appellant would be de-
nied the valuable right of appeal under the letters patent and a fur-
ther appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The narrow question in this case therefore is whether in view
of the circumstances herein delineated, which is the court which
G would have jurisdiction to entertain the award; in other words which
is the court having jurisdiction in which the award should be filed
by the arbitrator?

At the outset relevant prov1S1ons of the Act may be noticed.
H
The expression 'Court' has been defined in section 2 (c) as under:
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 849

2 (c) "Court" means a Civil Court having jurisdiction A
to decide the questions forming the subject matter
of the reference if the same had been the subject
matter of a suit, but does not, except for the
purpose of the arbitration proceedings u/s 21,
include a Small Cause Court."
B
Section 14 provides for filing of the award. Sub.section 2 is
relevent for the present purpose which reads as under :

"14 (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of
any party to the arbitration agreement or any
person claiming under such party or if so directed c
by the Court and upon payment of the fees and
charges due in respect of the arbitration and award
and of the costs and charges of filing the award,
cause the award or a signed copy of it, together
with any depositions and documents which may
have been taken and proved before them, to be D
filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give
notice to the parties of the filing of the award."

Section 31 deals with the jurisdiction of the court in respect of an
award which reads as under :
E
"31 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act an award
may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in
the matter to which the reference relates.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force and save as other- F
wise provided in this Act, all questions regarding
the validity, effect or existence of an award or an
award or an arbitration· agreement between the
parties to the agreement or persons claiming
under them shall be decided by the Court in which
the award under the agreement has been, or may G
be, filed and by no other court.

(3) All applications regarding the conduct of arbitra-
tion proceedings or otherwise arising out of such
proceedings shall be made to the Court where the
H
award has been, or may be, filed and to no other
court.
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11982] 1 s.c.R.

A (4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in
this Act or in any other law for the time being in
force, where in any reference any application
under this Act has been made in a Court competent
to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdic-
tion over the arbitration proceedings and all
D subsequent applications ansmg out of that
reference, and the arbitration proceedings shall be
made in that Court and in no other Court."

The dictionary meaning of expression 'Court' in section 2 (c)
has to be applied wherever that word occurs in the Act, but with
c this limitation that if there is anything repugnant in the subject or
context, the dictionary meaning may not be applied to the expression
'Court.' Assuming that there is nothing repugnant Iin the subject
or context the expression 'Court' in the Act would mean that civil
court which would have jurisdiction to decide the question forming
the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject
D matter of a suit but does not include a Small Cause Court though
it is a civil court except for the arbitration proceedings under
section 21. Section 14 sub-section (2) provides for filing of the
award in the court and in view of the definition of the expression
'Court' the arbitrator will have to file the award in that court
which would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit forming the
E subject-matter of reference.

Paraphrasing this clause in simple lanaguage it would mean
that the court in which the suit involving a dispute in arbitration
would be required to be filed alone would have jurisdiction to
entertain the award. This will by necessary implication incorporate
F the provisions as to jurisdiction of court to entertain civil suits as ·,
set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In fact, Section 41
of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and
Rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings before the court and
to all appeals under the Act. In other words, in the absence of an
G arbitration agreement if a dispute was required to be resolved by
initiating proceedings in a civil court, that court which will have
jurisdiction to entertain the suit alone would have jurisdiction to
entertain the award and the arbitrator in view of section 14 sub-
section (2) would have to file the award in that court. There was
H some controversy between the High Courts whether the expression
'Court' would comprehend appellate court in which the award can
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 851
A
be filed but it was finaliy resolved by the decision of this Court in
Ct. A. Ct. Nacchiappa Chettiar Others v. Ct. A. Ct. Subramanium
Chettiar, (') wherein it was held that the expressions 'suit' and
'court' in section 21 of the Act would also comprehend proceedings
in 'appeal' and 'cppellate Court' respectively. This Court observed
that the expression 'court' in section 21 includes the appellate court
proceedings which are generally recognised as continuation of the 8
suit; and the word 'suit' will include such appellate proceedings.
Indisputably, award will have to be filed in the court in which, in
the absence of an arbitration proceeding a suit will have to be filed
touching the subject-matter involved in the suit. If sub-section (2)
of section 14 was the last word on the question of jurisdiction of
the court in which the award is to be filed, there is considerable c
force in the submission of Mr. Narula that the award in this case
will have to he filed in Delhi High Court alone.

Section 31 of the Act provides the forum in which an award
' may be filed. Sub-section (I) of section 31 provides that an award
may be filed in any court having jurisdiction in the matter to which D
the reference relates. Incorporating the definition of the expression
'court' as set out in section 2 (c) in sub-section (I) of section 31
would mean that the award will have to be filed in that court in
which the suit in respect of the dispute involved in the award
would have been required to be filed. This is quite consistent with
the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 14. So far E
there is no difficulty. The scheme disclosed in sub-sections (2),(3) and
(4) of section 31 clearly indicates that to the exclusion of all other
courts only one court will have jurisdiction to deal with the
proceedings incidental to the reference and the arbitration. Sub-

•
section (3) clearly points in this direction when it provides that all
applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or F
otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall he made to the court
where the award has been or may be filed and to no other court.
Then comes sub-section (4). It opens with a non-obstante clause
and is comprehensive in character. The non-obstante clause
excludes anything anywhere contained in the whole Act or in any
other law for the time being in force if it is contrary to or inconsistent G
with the substantive provision contained in sub-section (4). To
that extent it carves out an exception to the general question of
jurisdiction of the court in which award may be filed elsewhere

(I) (1960] 2 SCR 209.
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 S.C.R.

A provided in the Act in respect of the proceedings referred to in sub-
section (4). The provision contained in sub-section (4) will have
an over-riding effect in relation to the filing of the award if the
conditions therein prescribed are satisfied. If those conditions are
satisfied tbe court other than the one envisaged in section 14 m or
section 31 (!)will be the court in which award will have to be filed.
B That is tte effect of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (4) of
s<Ctirn 3l. Sub·s(cticn (4) thus invests exclusive jurisdiction in the
court, to which an application bas been made in any reference and
which that C< urt is competent to entertain as the court having
juritdicticn oHr th a1bitraticn prcceedings and all subsequent
c applications arising out of reference and the arbitration proceedings
shall have to be made in that court and in no other court. Thus
sub-section (4) not cnly confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court
to which an application is made in any reference but simultaneously
-
ousts the jurisdiction of any other court which may as well have
jurisdiction in this tehalf. To illustrate the point, if an award was
required to be filed under section 14 (2) read with section 31 (I) in
I> any particuk r eourt as being the court in which a suit touching the
subject-matter of award would have been required to be filed, but
if any application in the reference under the Act bas been filed in t
some other court which was competent to entertain that application,
then to the exclusion of the first mentioned court the latter court
E alone, in view of the overriding effect of the provision contained in
section 3 I (4), will have jurisdiction to entertain the award and the
award will have to be filed in that court alone and no other court
will have jurisdiction to entertain the same.

The provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 14 will
neither be rendered otiose nor stand in disharmony on the construc-
tion t!>at we place on sub-section (4) of section 31 because the
expression 'court' as defined in section 2 (c) will have to be adhered
to unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context in
which it is used. Therefore, the expression 'court' as used in section
I 4 (2) will have to be understood in this background.
•
G
On a pure grammatical construction as well as taking
harmonious and overall view of the various provisions contained
in the Act it is crystal clear that ordinarily that court will have
jurisdiction to deal with the questions arising under the Act, except
the one in Chapter IV, in which a suit with regard to the dispute
H
involved in the arbitration would be required to be filed under the
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 853

provisions of the Code of Civil Procednre. However, where an appli-
A
cation is made in any reference to a court competent to entertain it,
that court alone will have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceed-
ings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference
and the arbitration proceedings shall have to be made in that
Court alone and in no other court. B

In this case an application was made to Delhi High Court
nnder section 20 of the Act for a direction to file the arbitration
agreement in the court. As provided in sub-section (2) of section

- 20, the proceeding was numbered as a suit. The suit ended in an
order of reference to the arbitrator, the 2nd respondent. A
subsequent application was made to Delhi High Court under section
c
5 read with section 11 of the Act for removal of the 2nd respondent
as arbitrator. On this application being dismissed, the matter was
brought to this Court in appeal being Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1977.
By the decision of this Court in the appeal the 2nd respondent was
removed as arbitrator and the 3rd respondent was appointed as
D
, sole arbitrator. Indisputably, therefore, the arbitrator was appointed
by this Court. The order appointing the 3rd respondent as arbitrator
gave a further direction that the arbitrator shall enter upon the
reference within 15 days from the date of the order of the Court
and he should try to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
The final order was that the appeal was disposed of in terms
E
hereinabove indicated. A contention that thereafter this Court was
not in seisin of the matter was urged relying upon the fact that the
appeal was disposed of by the order of t1 e court and that there was
no further proceeding before this Court.- This contention has merely
to be stated to be rejected, as will be presently pointed out. After
the disposal of the appeal, CMP No. 896/77 was presented to this
F
Court for clarification and/or modification of the order of the Court
dated January 5, 1977. This Court by its order dated February
10, 1977, gave further directions and a specific time limit was fixed
by this Court directing the 3rd respondent as arbitrator to conclude
the proceedings within four months from the date of order of the
C.ourt. Even with regard to the conduct of proceedingi this c~urt
G
directed that the 3rd respondent should proceed with the referenc
from the stage where it was left by the 2nd respondent and that no~
only that he may permit additional evidence to be led but he must
cons~der th~ pleadings and evidence already placed before the
prev10us arbitrator. This will indisputably show that this Court had
H
complete control over the proceedings before the arbitrator.
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R,

A Mr. R.S. Narula, learned counsel for the appellant pointed
out that subsequently an application was made by the appellant
before Delhi High Court that the 3rd respondent must also resolve
the dispute arising out of a counter-claim made by the appellant
against the I st respondent and that this application was entertained
by Delhi High Court and that therefore, it cannot be said that this
B
Court alone was in seisin of the matter or was seized of the matter.
There is no substance in this contention because the !st respondent
had challenged the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to entertain the )

same and ultimately the application filed by the appellant was
dismissed, albdt upon a compromise between the parties enlarging
c the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by consent. But the petition having
been dismissed and the contention having been taken as to jurisdic-
tion, it cannot bt said that Delhi High Court had control over the
arbitration proceedings. In the light of this uncontroverted
evidence in view of the provision contained in sub-section (4) of
section 31 the arbitrator will have to file the award in this Court and
he rightly approached this Court upon a notice being given by the
D
1st respondent for filing the award in this Court.

Curiously, an officer of this Court took it into his head to l
advise the arbitrator to file the Award in Delhi High Court without
obtaining any direction of the Court. We must record our
displeasure about this usurpation of jurisdiction of the Court by an
E officer of this Court. We say no more. In view of the fact that a
reference was made by this Court to the 3rd respondent and that this
court gave further direction about the manner and method of
conducting the arbitration proceedings and fixed the time for
completion of arbitration proc, edings, this Court alone would have
jurisdiction to entertain the award.
F
The view which we are taking is completely borne out by the
decision of this Conrt in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s Saith &
Skelton (P) Ltd. (1). In that case the facts were that the State of
Madhya Pradesh bad entered into a contract with M/s Saith &
Skelton (P) Ltd. for the supply and erection of penstocks for
G Gandhi Sagar Power Station, Cbambal Hyde! Works. Clause 21
of the contract incorporated an arbitration agreement. Disputes
having arisen between the parties to the contract, the contractor
intimated to the Madhya Praeesh State nominating one Shri T.R.

H ------------
(I) [1972] 3 SCR 233.
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 855

Sharma as an arbitrator ~under clause 21 of the contract. On A
receipt of the intimation the Government nominated one Shri
G.S. Gaitonde as an arbitrator and on his resignation one Sbri
R.R. Desai was nominated as an arbitrator. The arbitrators
appointed Shri R. C. Soni as umpire. On a disagreement between
the arbitrators the reference was taken over by the umpire. A
petition was moved on behalf of the Government in the Court of B
the Additional Distt. Judge, Mandsaur for setting aside the
nomination as arbitrator of both Shri T.R. Sharma and Shri R.R.
Desai as also the appointment of Shri R.C. Soni as umpire. The
learned Additional Distt. Judge held that the appointment of Shri

- R.R. Desai as arbitrator and Shri R.C. Soni as umpire was invalid.
The contractor filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh which was converted into a revision petition. The High
c
Court by its order dated August 6, 1970, appointed Shri R.C. Soni
as the sole arbitrator and to that extent modified the order of the
I
Additional Distt. Judge. The State approached this Court by
petition for special leave to appeal which was granted. This Court
by consent of both the parties appointed Shri V.S. Desai, Senior D
Advocate of this Court as the sole arbitrator. During the pendency
of the proceedings, this Court gave directions to call for the records
and to be sent to the arbitrator. The Court also extended
time initially granted to the arbitrator to complete the proceedings.
The arbitrator thereafter gave bis award and filed the same in the
E
Supreme Court. A petition was filed by the Contractor for passing
a judgment and decree according to the award. The State filed a
petition praying for an order declining to take the award on its
file or in any event to set aside or modify the same. On behalf of
the State it was, inter alia, contended that the Supreme Court is ,not
the court contemplated by section 14 (2) read with section 2 (c) of F
the Act where the award can be filed. Negativing this contention
this Court held as under :

"According to Mr. Shroff the Award should have been
filed, not in this Court, but in the Court of the Additional
G
District Judge, Mandsaur, as that is the Court which will
have jurisdiction to entertain the suit regarding the subject
matter of the reference. We are not inclined to accept
this contention of Mr. Shroff. It should be uoted that
the opening words of section 2 are "In this Act, unless
H
f.. there is anything repugnant in the subject or context".
Therefore the expression "Court" will have to be under-
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 S.C.R

A stood as defined in section 2 (c) of the Act, only if there is
nothing repngnant in the subject or context. It is in that
light that the expression "Court" occurring in section 14
(2) of the Act will have to be understood and interpreted.
It was this Court that appointed Shri V. S. Desai on January
29, 1971, by consent of parties, as an arbitrator and to
8 make his award. It will be seen that no further directions
were given in the said order which will indicate that this
Court had not divested itself of its jurisdiction to deal
with the award or matters arising out of the award. In
fact, the indications are to the contrary. The direction in
c the order dated January 29, 1971, is that the arbitrator is
"to make his award". Surely the law contemplates
further steps to be taken after the award has been made,
-
and quite naturally the forum for taking the further action
is only this Court. There was also direction to the effect
that the parties are at liberty to apply for extension of time
D for making the award. In the absence of any other court
having been invested with such jurisdiction by the order,
the only conclusion that is possible is that such a request
must be made only to the court which passed that order,
namely, this Court.
That this Court retained complete control over the
E arbitration proceedings is made clear by its orders dated
February 1, 1971 and April 30, 1971. On the former
date, after hearing counsel for both the parties, this Court
gave direction that the record of the arbitration proceedings
be called for and delivered to the sole arbitrator Mr. V.S.
Desai. On the latter date, again, after hearing the
F
counsel, this Court extended the time for making the
award by four months and further permitted the arbitrator
to hold the arbitration proceedings at Bombay. The
nature of the order passed on January 29, 1971, and the
subsequent proceedings, referred to above, clearly show
G that this Court retained full control over the arbitration
proceedings.

Mr. Shroff referred us to the fact thac in the order
dated January 29, 1971, it is clearly stated: "The appeal
H is allowed". According to him, when the appeal has come
to an end finally, this Court had lost all jurisdiction
regarding the arbitration proceedings, and therefore the
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION v. RATTAN SINGH (Desai, J.) 857

filing of the award, should be only in the court as defined A
in section 2 (c) of the Act Here again, we are not inclined
to accept the contention of Mr. Shroff. That the appeal
was allowed, is no doubt correct. But the appeal was
allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court and
this Court in tum appointed Mr. V.S. Desai as the sole
arbitrator. All other directions contained in the order
B
dated January 29, 1971, and the further proceedings, as
pointed out earlier, indicate the retention of full control
by this Court over the arbitration proceedings".

The reasoning therein will muratis mutandis apply to the facts
which are more or less identical in the case before us. Therefore, c
both on principle and on authority this Court alone will have
jurisdiction for the filing of the award.

Mr. Narula contended that the decision of this Court in
I Kumbha Mawji v. Union of India (1) 'will indicate that sectiov 31 (4)
is not confined to applications made after the reference is made or D
during the pendency of the reference but may take within its sweep
an application made earlier to the reference being made. And that
if such an application is made that court alone will have jurisdiction
to entertain subsequent applications. Proceeding from this basis
Mr. Narula contended that the initial application under section 20
for filing the arbitration agreement was '.made to ;Delhi High Court E
and, therefore, all subsequent applications will have to be made
--· to that court alone. In Kumbha Mawji' s case a contention was
raised before this Court that section 31 (4) is merely confined to
applications during the course of pendency of a reference to arbitra-
tion. This Court after analysing the scheme of section 31, held
that there is no conceivable reason why the legislature should have F
intended to confine the operation of sub-section (4) only to
applications made during the pendency of an arbitration, if as is
contended, the pharse 'in any reference' is to be taken as meaning
'in the course of a reference'. Ultimately this Court held that the
phrase 'in any reference' used in sub-section (4) of section 31 means
'in the course of any reference', and concluded that section 31, G
sub-section (4) would vest exclusive jurisdiction in the court in
which an application for the filing of an award has been first made
uncler section 14 of the Act. We fail to see how this decision would
help in answering the contention canvassed on behalf of the
H
(!) [1953] SCR 878.
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 S.C.R.

appellant. In fact the decision in Kumbha Mawji' s case was further
explained by this Court in Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwa/. (1)
The contention in the latter case was whether an application under
section 34 of the Act for stay of the suit was an application made
in a reference within the meaning of section 31 (4) of the Act and,
therefore, subsequent application can only be made to that court in
'B which stay of the suit was prayed for. In support of this contention
reliance was placed on Kumbha Mawji' s case urging that the
expression 'in any reference' under section 31 (4) of the Act is
comprehensive enough to cover application first made ''after the
arbitration is completed and a final award made and the sub-
section is not confined to applications made during the pendency
c of the arbitration proceeding. Negativing this contention this •
Court held that accepting the wider meaning given to the phrase 'in
any reference' as implying 'in the course of a reference' an applica-
tion under section 34 is not an application in a reference within the
meaning of the phrase as elaborated in Kumbha Mawji's case. The

D
Court took notice of various sections under which an application '
can be made before a reference has been made. Therefore, the
decision in Kumbha Mawji' s case would not mean that a proceeding
earlier to the reference in a court would clothe that court with
such jurisdiction as to , render the provision contained in section 31
(4) otiose.

E Mr. Narula lastly urged that if this Court were to arrogate
jurisdiction to itself by putting on sub-section (4) of section 31 a
construction as canvassed for on behalf of the l st respondent it
would deprive the appellant of its valuable right to prefer an appeal
under the Letters Patent and approach this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution. If this Court bas jurisdiction to entertain the
F award and this Court in view of section 31 (4) alone has jurisdiction
for entertaining the award meaning that the award has to be filed
in this Court alone and no other, the same cannot be defeated by a
specious plea that the right of appeal would be denied. In an
identical situation in M/s Saith & Skelton (P) Ltd. case, this Court
held that the award has to he filed in this Court alone which would
G certainly negative an opportunity to appeal because this is the final
court. Conceding as held by this Court in Garikapatti Veeraya v.
N. Subbiah Choudhury, (2 ) that the right of appeal is a vested right
and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant
H
(I) [1970] l SC R 351.
(2) (1957] SCR 488.
GURU NANAK FOUNDATION V. RATTAN SINGH (Dcs1i, J.) 859

and exists as on and from the date the /is commences, by the view A
we are taking such a right is not denied or defeated because the
highest court to which one can come by way of appeal will entertain
all contentions that may have to be canvassed on behalf of the
appellant. The door of this Court is not being closed to the
appellant. In fact the door is being held wide ajar for him to raise
all contentions which one can raise in a proceeding in an originating B
summons. Therefore, we see no merit in this contention and it
mµst be rejected.

Accordingly we allow CMP 14079 of 1977 and declare that
this Court is the Court having exclusive jurisdiction whereia the
award dated November 11, 1977, should be filed a11d we further c
direct the 1st respondent to approach the Registrar of the D~lb.i
Court to collect the award alongwith the record of proceedings of
the 3rd respondent in the reference made by this Court and the
same be filed in this Court. We direct that on the receipt of the
I Award and the proceedings a notice of the filing of the award
D
should be issued to the appellant and the 1st respondent and the
further proceedings should be held. The costs of the present
hearing will abide the final outcome of the matter.

V.D.K. Petition allowed.

-