Skip to content


Union of India Vs. Clean Foods Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSuit No. 135A of 1980
Judge
Reported in21(1982)DLT41; 1982(3)DRJ283
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14
AppellantUnion of India
RespondentClean Foods Corporation and ors.
Advocates: N.K. Jaggi and; B.D. Dhawan, Advs
Excerpt:
.....the govt. alleged that the petitioner was liable to make good the loss of rs. 1,10,716 sustained by the government. dispute and differences were referred to arbitrator. in exparte proceedings, the arbitrator allowed the claim of the government which applied to the high court under sections 14 and 17. the petitioner filed objections.; the subordinate judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to refer the govt. claim to arbitrator. he had jurisdiction to refer only the petitioner's claim of rs. 12,800. the question of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and this defect cannot be waived. each reference is a separate reference. the petitioner's reference of his dispute was one references. so was the govt. claim the two cannot be combined. the reference is not a jumble of odds and.....(1) the subordinate judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to refer the govt. claim to arbitrator. he had jurisdiction to refer only the petitioner's claim ofrs. 12,800. the question of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and this defect cannot be waived. each reference is a separate reference. the petitioner's reference of his dispute was one references. so was the govt. claim the two cannot be combined. the reference is not a jumble of odds and ends. it is an order of the court. he who asks for reference must see that court is competent to refer.
Judgment:

(1) The subordinate judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to refer the govt. claim to arbitrator. He had jurisdiction to refer only the petitioner's claim ofRs. 12,800. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and this defect cannot be waived. Each reference is a separate reference. The Petitioner's reference of his dispute was one references. So was the Govt. claim the two cannot be combined. The reference is not a jumble of odds and ends. It is an order of the Court. He who asks for reference must see that Court is competent to refer.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //