PRATAP SINGH v. PREETAM SINGH & ANR (2)

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 776

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER

Case summary

It was urged that the suit filed at Mandsaur only relates to the F \. After the High Court of Delhi determines that question, the receiver appointed, in order to comply with the require- E ments of the statute, may be made subject to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court, if it...

Judgment text

776 PRAJAP SINGH v. PRBETAM S. INGH & ANR. B August 19, 1969 [J:C. SHAH, ACTING CJ. , V. RAMASWAMI, A. N. GROVER,JJ. } c Arbitration Act, 1940-Stctlon 31(4)-Scopl of. Tbe appellant and the respondent were carrying on three busineMes at ~three diffe. rent places-Piptiya in Madhya Prades~. Bombay 110d Nagpur. Certain disputes relating to the partnertbip business were referred to an arbitrator. Having not been able to complete ti;le reference within four months, the arbitrator applied to the Subordinate Judge, Delhi for extension oftime. Overruling the D objection as to his jurisdiction to e. ntertain the application the Subordinate Judge, Delhi granted extension of time for making the award. When the revision application against this order was pending before the High Court of Delhi, the respondent filed a suit in the court ot the Additional . District Judge in Madhya Pradesh for certain' reliefs. In the meantime the appel· lant applied under s.

34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit. The Addi- I tional District Judge appointed a receiver of the properties. In appeal the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that having regard to the proceedings pending in tl:ie High Court at Delhi it was a case in which, without adjudicating upon the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi, the. application for appointment of the . ) rreceiver was maintainable. ) In appeal to this Court it was contended that it was open to a Court to F appoint a receiver of any other property in dispute or in relation to any proceedings before the arbitrator and by coofirment of that power, the power of the Civil Court in a suit t~ appoint a receiver·was excluded and, therefore, the only Court competent to entertain an application for. appointment of a receiver was the Subordinate Judge at Delhi and not the court of Additional District Judge in Madhya Pradesh.

G _ -nismissing the appeal, HELD : Normally for the, grant of interim relief in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute before an arbitrator the parties would have to resort _ to that court to which tho application for extension of time to make the award H was made. But as the jurisdiction of the Court ofthe Subordinate Judge, Delhi to entertain tbe applicati. on for exteQ$ion of time w~ in d_ispute the Civil Court PRATA. P\SINGH v. PREBTAM SINGH {J. C. Shah, Ag. C. J. ) 777 which is seised of the suit was entitled to make appropriate orders for preserving the property which is the subject-matter of the-suit. [780 C-D] · Therefo're, the Civil Court in Madhya Pradesh was competent to appoint a receiver of the· property unfil the question about tbe jurisdiction of the Delhi Court under s. 31 (4) of the Arbitration Act to entertain appli! :;aiions arising out of the order of reference was finally determined.

After the High Court of Delhi B determined tbat question, tbe receiver appointed, in order to comply with the requirements of the statute, may be made subject to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court if it be held that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appli· cation. [780·B) CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil AppeaL No. 2321 of -. C 1 1968. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dared the 1st November, 1968 of the-. Madhya Pradesh High Court,· Indore· Bench in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111 of 1967. . D C. K. Daphtary and B. Dutra for the Appellant. P. C. Khanna for Respondent No. 1. I The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. C. SHAH, AG. C. J: Pratap Singh, Preetam Singh and Diwan Singh are three brothers. Pratap Singh and Preetam Singh. carried on business in partnership, at three places-{I)·Pipliya in Madhya Pradesh, in the·name of the Jaora Slate Pencil Works; {2) Bombay, F in the name of Partap Bro!

hers; and (3) Nagpur, in the name of Nice Tiles and Marble, Nagpur: By an agreement dated December 18, \965 disputes between Pratap Singh and Preetam Singh relating to the partnership business were referred to the arbitration of their brother Diwan Singh. The arbitrator enter~d upon the reference, but be was unable to complete the reference within four G months.. Diwan Singh, l! pplied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi,-under s. 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time. Preetam Singh objected to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi to entertain the application. The Subordinate Judge _ overruled the objection and granted extension of time for making H the award. A revision application,. preferred against the order is pending before the High Court of Delhi. ....... . ~·~ SUPREMB COURT REPORTS 778 A · Jn the nieanwbile.

Preetam Singh filed an action in the Co~rt of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur against Pratap Singh and Pritipal Singh (brother-in-law of Preetam Singh) for a decree for rendition of account of the dealing ·in respect of the Jaora Slate Pencil-Works and for appointment of a receiver. By amendment of . the plaint a claim for d_issolution of partnership was also made. B Pratap Singh applied under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for stay of the suit, and the'applicati oilts (19s21 3s. t!. i. A Arbitration Act. to appoint a receiver of any other property in dispute or in relation, to any proceedings before the arbitrator, and -.... by conferment of that power, the power of the Civil Court in a suit to appoint a receiver is excluded. On that premise it was urged that the only Court competent to entertain an application for appoint- < ment of a receiver was the Subordinate Judge's Court at Delhi and u· not the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur.

It is true that an application for extension of time to make the award was made to the Cour~ of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi and · normally the parties would have to resort to that Court for interim relief in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute before the arbitrator. .. But so long as . the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate I c [ Judge, Delhi to entertain the application for eitension of time was . in dispute the Civil Court which is seized of the suit was entitled to make _appropriate orders for preserving the property which is the subject-matter of the suit. I · D We are therefore of the view that the Civil Court at Mandsaur was competent to appoint a receiver of the property until the question about the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court under s. 31 (4) to entertain applications arising out of the order of reference is finally determined.

After the High Court of Delhi determines that question, the receiver appointed, in order to comply with the require- E ments of the statute, may be made subject to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court, if it be held that Delhi Court had . jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was urged that the suit filed at Mandsaur only relates to the F \. assets, of the partnership at Pipliya within the State of Madhya Pradesh and does not relate to the proper~ies at Bombay and Nagpur and t~at by the expe. dient of obtaining an order for appointment of a recetver Preetam Smgb has managed to remain in possession of the properties at Do~bay and Nagpur to the exclusion of Pratap Singh. G We cannot at this stage, de~~~e. wbether the suit in so far tt:i it relates to the ~sset~ of the partn~~s. ~ip at Pipliya alone is maintainable. The arburatJO. n proc~edings . undoubtedly relate to all the assets of the Partnershtp and tf Preetam Singh as contend.. d b p s· . h h • d · • • -.

Y ratap IDg , as rrmatne tn possessaon of the properties of the partnersbi at H Dombay. and Nagpur to tho exclusion of Pratap Singh and it is p·ust and equttable to have a receiver appointed h' . J · • IS reO\edy IS to COnl" . / PitdAP ! IN(nt •.. Pki! ilTAM stN6H (J. C. s~J,. Ag. C. i. ) 7ai mence appropriate proceedingdor that purpose and to apply to a competent court to appoint a receiver of the properties. . The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. B • - P. B. R. Appealtdismis_sed. )