Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA versus R. B. CH RAGHUNATH SINGH & CO.

Decided
27 July 1979
Judges listed
N.L. UNTWALIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 128 · 1979 INSC 131
Also cited as
  • (1979) 4 SCC 21 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

UNTWALIA, J. These two appeals by certificate arise out of the same proceedings between the parties. The respondent company applied to the Trial Court for the filing of the Arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act and for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8. The applications were allowed. An Arbitrator was appointed. The Union of India took the matter in appeals to the Allahabad High Court. The High Court has dismissed the appeal arising out of the order of the Trial Court under Section 20 of the Act and has treated the appeal arising out of Section 8 order as a revision and dismissed the samo· also. The Union of India has come to this Court.

p. 128, margin F

The decisions of the courts below in regard to Section 20 matM is at an e"nd now. It was denied on behalf of the appellant that there was any Arbitration agreement. The findings of the court below in this regard could not be assailed at all.

p. 129

The Arbitration clause in the contract between the parties ran as follows

p. 129

"All disputes or differences arising between the parties or their representatives and the Controller of Rationing Delhi at any time hereafter and of whatever nature arising out of or in respect of the contract shall be refurred for arbitration to the Chief Commissioner /Director of Storage, Ministry of Food, Government of India, and his decision shall be final and bi"nding."

p. 129

The post of Director of Storage, Ministry of Food, Gowrnment of India was abolished and no person holding that post was available for arbitration for the purpose of the arbitration clause aforesaid. The Chief Commissioner, however, was available but he refused to act. That led the respondent company to apply to the court under Section 8 of the Act for appointment of a'nother Arbitrator. The argumerrt put forward on behalf of the appellant is that when there was a named Arbitrator even thongh he was named by office, it was not open to the court to supply the vacancy in his place under Section S(l)(b) of the Act. We did not find any substa"nce in this argument. The court had no powzr to supply the vacancy under Section 8(1) (b) only if the arbitration agreement did show that the parties did not intend to supply the vacancy. If no such intention could be culled out from the arbitration clause, the court could supply the vaca"ncy. There is a direct decision of this Court in M/s . . Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of llldia & Another.(')

p. 129, margin C

Mr. R. B. Datar, counsel for the appellant placed the reliance upon the Full Bench Decision of Madras High Court in Badam Satayanarayanamurthi v. Badam Venkataramanamurthi & Ors.('), in support of his submission that no other Arbitrator could be appointed by the court under Section 8 of the Ad when tho Arbitrator named in the agreement refused to act. In our opinion while considering the provisions of SectiO"n 8 (1) (b) of the Act, that decision is of no help to the appellant. The full Bench decision was given with reference the corresponding provisions of (ll (1971] 2 s.c.R. 564. (2) A.l.R. 1948 Mtdros 312. law contained in Schedule II of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in paragraph 5 whereof the crucial words occurring in Section S(l){b) of the Act were not there. The words in Section 8 (1) (b) are these : "and arbitration agreement does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied."

pp. 129–130, margin F

For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in either of the two appeals. They are accordingly dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 1500 /-. S.R. Appeals dismissed.

p. 130, margin B