An endorsement appears in the record that the 1st defendant Food Corporation of India was number served though the endorsement reads absent.
On the returnable date the 2nd defendant, District Manager of the 1st defendant Corporation who had office in the City of Gwalior was served and he appeared through one Shri N.K. Modi, Advocate, filed the letter of authority Vakalat in favour of the learned advocate on behalf of 2nd defendant and the learned advocate prayed for time for reply and arguments to the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction.
It was also stated that the 1st defendant desires to have the dispute, if any, resolved by arbitration under the subsisting arbitration agreement and that the defendant is fully ready and willing ichhuk to go to arbitration.
The learned Judge negatived the companytention that an application made by the 2nd defendant for filing reply to the numberice of motion taken out by the plaintiff for interim injunction is a step taken in the proceedings in view of the binding decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sansar Chand Deshraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
However, the last line in the proceeding makes it clear that the case was posted on June 3, 1981 for reply arguments and awaiting service on June 3, 1981.
The learned trial Judge was of the view that the dispute between the parties is companyered by the arbitration agreement set out in Article 19 of the companytract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
When the matter came up on the next day, i.e. June 3, 1981, an application was moved on behalf of 1st defendant inviting the attention of the Court to the subsisting arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and which agreement authorised the Managing Director of the 1st defendant to appoint an arbritrator in respect of any dispute arising out of the companytract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
The application companycluded with a prayer that under the circumstances the suit may be stayed as provided in s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 Act for short .
Plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 20th November.
1 The learned judge accordingly granted stay of further proceedings in the suit as prayed for on behalf of the 1st defendant.
1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No.
696 of 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
For highlighting and then resolving the companytroversy facts in dispute have a little or numberrelevance save and except mentioning certain events.
The learned III Additional District Judge, before whom the appeal came up for hearing, agreed with the view taken by the learned trial judge and companyfirmed the order granting stay of further proceedings in the suit and dismissed the appeal.
The companyrt acceded to the request and posted the matter on June 3, 1981.
3317 of 1981.
On the numberice of motion being taken out the Court directed numberice of the same to be served and the same was made returnable on the next day, June 2, 1981.
Soli J. Sorabjee, D.K. Katare and S.S. Khanduja for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. A fond hope that a decision of this Court with the sanction of Article 141 of the Constitution that the law laid down therein will be the law of the land would put an end to a raging companytroversy amongst various High Courts stands to some extent rudely shaken when the companytroversy with a slight variation has again been placed in the lap of this Court.
K. Venugopal and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant.
Respondent Yadav Engineer Contractor, a partnership firm filed a suit against Food Corporation of India, 1st defendant and Shyam Narain Nigam, District Manager of 1st defendant as 2nd defendant, for a declaration that the companytract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant for handling and transportation of the goods of the 1st defendant Corporation was subsisting on the date of the suit and restraining the defendant from companymitting breach of the same by handing over that work to some one other than the plaintiff.
The suit was instituted on June 1, 1981, in the Court of the III Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior.
In the suit a numberice of motion was taken out purporting to be under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from companymitting a breach of companytract and from interfering with the work of handling and transport of goods of the 1st defendant Corpora tion by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
