Saifuddin Vs. ihar State Forest Development Corporation & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2167 of 1986.
Petitioner: Saifuddin
Respondent: ihar State Forest Development Corporation & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2167 of 1986.
Judges: A.P.SEN, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI & G.L.OZA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 12, 1987
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Whether petitioner was prevented from working over the forest contract to cut and remove cane and whether he was entitled to reduction in purchase price – Dispute undoubtedly exists between the parties on these questions and cannot be decided in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution – This pre-eminently is a fit case to be decided by arbitration.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that a dispute does exist between the parties on the question, namely, whether the late Ahmed Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was prevented from working over the forest contract for cutting and removal of cane from Lot No.56A in Madanpur Range of Champaran Forest Area in the year 1981-82 for which he had been granted a contract by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and had paid a sum of Rs.12,01,000 to the Corporation towards price, because of the prohibitory order issued by the high Court of Patna in favour of one B.L.Malik on a writ petition filed by him or for any other reason, and if so, whether he was entitled to a corresponding reduction in the purchase price. The dispute undoubtedly exists and this cannot be decided in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We consider that this pre-eminently is a fit case to be decided by arbitration.
2. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to nominate a retired District Judge as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the aforesaid dispute between the parties. We direct that the Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after notice to the parties and also afford the parties an opportunity to lead their evidence in support of their respective claims. We further direct that the Arbitrator shall give a reasoned award within six months from the date of his entering upon reference.
3. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal allowed.
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that a dispute does exist between the parties on the question, namely, whether the late Ahmed Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was prevented from working over the forest contract for cutting and removal of cane from Lot No.56A in Madanpur Range of Champaran Forest Area in the year 1981-82 for which he had been granted a contract by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and had paid a sum of Rs.12,01,000 to the Corporation towards price, because of the prohibitory order issued by the high Court of Patna in favour of one B.L.Malik on a writ petition filed by him or for any other reason, and if so, whether he was entitled to a corresponding reduction in the purchase price. The dispute undoubtedly exists and this cannot be decided in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We consider that this pre-eminently is a fit case to be decided by arbitration.
2. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to nominate a retired District Judge as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the aforesaid dispute between the parties. We direct that the Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after notice to the parties and also afford the parties an opportunity to lead their evidence in support of their respective claims. We further direct that the Arbitrator shall give a reasoned award within six months from the date of his entering upon reference.
3. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal allowed.
