{"id":263388,"date":"1976-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976"},"modified":"2016-12-01T13:08:01","modified_gmt":"2016-12-01T07:38:01","slug":"union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1745, 1976 SCR (3) 998<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nOM PARKASH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/04\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1745\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 998\n 1976 SCC  (4)\t32\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC1124\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\n     Arbitration  Act<\/a>,\t1940-Secs.  8,\t20,30  32,33-Whether\ncourt appointing  an arbitrator\t can further  make an  order\nreferring disputes to arbitrator - Award can be set aside on\nthe ground  of invalidity of reference-Whether \"otherwise in\nvalid' includes invalid reference.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent, a contractor, entered into 7 agreements\nwith the  Union of India for the construction of a hospital,\nsome  buildings\t and  tube  wells.  In\teach  one  of  these\nagreements there  was a\t clause providing  that any  dispute\narising\t between   the\tparties\t would\tbe  referred  to  an\narbitrator. The\t designations of  the arbitrators  were also\nmentioned in  4 agreements  as\tDirector  of  Farms  in\t two\nagreements as  the officer  Commanding, Lucknow,  and in one\nagreement as the Quartermaster General at Delhi. The offices\nby reference  to which the arbitrators were mentioned in the\nagreement were\tabolished. The\trespondent therefore, made 7\napplications in\t the court  of Civil  Judge at\tMeerut under\nsection 8(2)<\/a>  of the  Arbitration  Act,\t 1940,\tpraying\t for\nappointment of an arbitrator. The Trial Court appointed Col.\nRanbir Singh  to act as an arbitrator in all the 7 cases and\nfurther directed  the papers to be sent to him asking him to\ngive his  award within\t2 months  from that  date. With\t the\nconsent\t of  both  the\tparties\t the  arbitrator  made\tsome\nprogress. However,  the Government  counsel submitted before\nthe arbitrator\tthat he\t should not proceed further since he\nwas not\t competent to deal with the questions of law arising\nfor  decision.\t Thereafter  the   District   Judge   Meerut\ntransferred the cases to the Judge of the Small Causes Court\nat Meerut presumably on the assumption that the respondent's\napplication for\t the appointment of arbitrator were pending.\nThe learned  Judge of  Small Causes Court appointed Director\nof Farms,  General Headquarters. to act as arbitrator in all\nthe 7  cases and  he was  further directed to file his award\nwithin one  month of  the said\torder. The  papers were then\nsent to\t Brig. Bhandari assuming that he was the Director of\nFarms. Later  on, the  respondent applied  to the  court for\nreview of its order alleging that the office of the Director\nof Farms  was abolished and, therefore, Brig. Bhandari could\nnot be\tthe officer  mentioned in  the order. The respondent\ndid not\t take part in the arbitration proceedings but before\nthe respondent\tcould obtain a stay the arbitrator filed his\naward in the Court.\n     The respondent  made 7  applications for  setting aside\nthe award  before the Small Causes Court, Meerut, which were\nrejected. Against that the respondent preferred 7 appeals to\nthe Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the appeals\naccepting the  contention of  the respondents that the Court\nwas functions  officio after appointing the arbitrator under\nsection 8(2)<\/a>  and had  no jurisdiction to refer the cases to\nthe arbitrator.\t The High  Court held  that it\twas for\t the\nparties to refer the disputes to the arbitrator after he was\nappointed by  the court and the reference by the court being\nwithout jurisdiction the awards were invalid. The High Court\nalso held  that when  the court\t made the order of reference\nthere was  no post  of Director\t of Farms and as such, Brig.\nBhandari was  not competent  to act  as an arbitrator on the\nbasis of the order of the Court.\n     In\t these\t appeals  by   certificate,  the  appellants\nchallenged the findings of the High Court.\n     Dismissing the appeals,\n^\n     HELD: An agreement to submit differences to arbitration\nimplies\t an  agreement\tto  refer  the\tdifferences  to\t the\narbitrator. Section 8<\/a> only empowers the\n999\nCourt to  appoint an  arbitrator where\tthe parties  do\t not\nconcur in  the appointment.  Section 20<\/a>\t contains provisions\nfor arbitration with the intervention of a Court,where there\nis no  suit pending. This section confers power on the court\nto order  the agreement\t to be\tfiled and further to make an\norder of  reference  to\t the  arbitrator  appointed  by\t the\nparties\t or   where  the   parties  cannot   agree  upon  an\nappointment, to an arbitrator appointed by the court. On the\nother  hand,  section  8<\/a>  does\tnot  contain  any  provision\nempowering the\tcourt to  make a reference to the arbitrator\nas one\tfinds in  section 20<\/a>.  Therefore. the  Small  Causes\nCourt at  Meerut had  no jurisdiction  after  appointing  an\narbitrator under  section 8(2)<\/a> to proceed further to make an\norder referring\t the disputes  to the  arbitrator. [1002D-E.\n1003C-E]\n     2. Section\t 30<\/a> of\tthe Act\t sets out  the\tgrounds\t for\nsetting aside an award. Section 30(c)<\/a> provides that an award\nshall not  be set  aside except\t when it has been improperly\nprocured or  is otherwise invalid. The decision of the Privy\nCouncil in  the case  of Chhabbe Lal v. Kallu Lal and others<\/a>\nholding that  an objection to the validity of a reference to\nthe arbitration\t did not  come within the provisions of Dara\n15 of  the second  schedule to\tthe Code  of Civil Procedure\nwhich provided\tthat no\t award was to be set aside except on\nthe specific  grounds mentioned\t therein or  the award being\notherwise invalid  cannot apply\t to the present case because\nin the\tsecond schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure which\nwas repealed  by Arbitration  Act<\/a>  of  1940.  there  was  no\nprovision like\tsection 32<\/a> or 33 of the Act. Section 32<\/a> bars\nthe institution\t of suits  concerning arbitration agreements\nor awards  and provides\t that no  arbitration  agreement  or\naward shall  be set  aside. amended.  modified or in any way\naffected otherwise  than as  provided in the Act. Section 33<\/a>\nprovides that a party to an arbitration agreement seeking to\nchallenge the agreement or the award must do so by making an\napplication to\tthe court.  When the  second schedule to the\nCivil Procedure\t Code was  in force  an\t award\tmade  on  an\ninvalid reference  could he set aside by filing a suit which\nwas then  the appropriate proceeding but now the appropriate\nproceeding is  the filing  of an application to the court as\nhas been  made\tin  the\t present  case.\t The  words  'or  is\notherwise invalid'  in clause  (c) in  section 30<\/a>  are\twide\nenough to cover all forms of invalidity including invalidity\nof the reference. [1003E, H,1004A-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ClVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 1284
\nto 1290 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals from  the Judgment;  and Decrees dated the 30th
\nJuly 1962  of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O’s Nos. 220
\nto 226 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
     L.N. Sinha,  Solicitor General,  G. L.  Sanghi, (In  CA
\n1284\/68) and Girish Chandra, for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     S.L. Bhatia and N. K. Puri, for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GUPTA, J.\tThese seven appeals by certificate have been
\npreferred by the Union of India against a common judgment of
\nthe Allahabad  High Court  disposing of\t seven appeals under
\nsection 39(1)(vi)<\/a>  of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeals
\nturn on\t the true  meaning and scope of sections 8<\/a> and 30<\/a> of
\nthe Act. Section 8<\/a> is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
Power of Court to appoint arbitrator or umpire
\n     “8.  (1)  In any of the following cases-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)\twhere an arbitration agreement provides that
\n\t       the  reference\tshall  be  to  one  or\tmore
\n\t       arbitrators to be appointed by consent of the
\n\t       parties, and  all the  partes do\t not,  after
\n\t       differences  have   arisen”  concur   in\t the
\n\t       appointment or appointments; or
\n1000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b)\t  if  any  appointed  arbitrator  or  umpire
\n\t       neglects or  re fuses to act, or is incapable
\n\t       of  acting,  or\tdies,  and  the\t arbitration
\n\t       agreement does  not show that it was intended
\n\t       that the\t vacancy should not be supplied, and
\n\t       the parties  or the  arbitrators, as the case
\n\t       may be, do not supply the vacancy; or\n<\/p>\n
\t  (c)\twhere the  parties or  the  arbitrators\t are
\n\t       required to  appoint an\tumpire\tand  do\t not
\n\t       appoint him;\n<\/p>\n
     any  party\t  may  serve   the  other   parties  or\t the
\n     arbitrators, as  the case may be, with a written notice
\n     to concur\tin the\tappointment or\tappointments  or  in
\n     supplying the vacancy.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2)  If the appointment is not made within fifteen
\n     clear days\t after the  service of\tthe said notice, the
\n     Court may, on the application of the party who gave the
\n     notice  and   after  giving   the\tother\tparties\t  an
\n     opportunity of  being heard,  ap point an arbitrator or
\n     arbitrators or  umpire, as\t the case  may be, who shall
\n     have like\tpower to act in the reference and to make an
\n     award as if he or they had been appointed by consent of
\n     all parties.”\n<\/p>\n
The question  that arises  for consideration  is whether the
\ncourt having appointed an arbitrator under subsection (2) of
\nsection 8<\/a>  can proceed further to make an order of reference
\nto the\tarbitrator. According  to the  respondent the  court
\nbecomes functions officio after appointing an arbitrator and
\nhas no jurisdiction to refer the matter to him.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tleading to the appeals are these. During the
\nlast world  war the  respondents a  contractor, entered into
\nseven  agreements   with  the  military\t department  of\t the
\nGovernment of  India for  the construction  of\ta  hospital”
\nthree other buildings and three tube wells. In each of these
\nagreements there  was a\t clause providing  that any  dispute
\narising\t between   the\tparties\t would\tbe  referred  to  an
\narbitrator.  In\t four  cases  the  agreements  provided\t for
\narbitration by\tthe Director of Farms, General Headquarters,
\nSimla, in  two cases the officer Commanding, Lucknow, was to
\nbe the\tarbitrator, and\t in  the  remaining  other  case,  a
\nQuarter-Master\tat  Delhi  was\tchosen\tas  the\t arbitrator.
\nDisputes having\t arisen between\t the parties, the respondent
\nmade seven  applications in  the court\tof the\tFirst  Civil
\nJudge, Meerut,\tunder section  8(2)<\/a> of\tthe Act stating that
\nthe offices  by reference  to  which  the  arbitrators\twere
\nselected in  the agreements  had been  abolished and  it was
\ntherefore necessary  to\t appoint  new  arbitrators.  In\t the
\napplications the  respondent named  several officers praying
\nthat one  of them  be appointed\t to act\t an arbitrator\t“who
\nshall have like power to act in the reference and to make an
\naward as  if he\t has been  appointed by\t the consent  of the
\nparties”. It  will be  noticed that  the prayer\t repeats the
\nmaterial   portion of  sub-section  (2)\t of  section  8<\/a>.  On
\nFebruary 13,  1950 the\tcourt appointed\t Col.  Ranbir  Singh
\nwhose name  was not  in the  respondent’s list,\t to  act  as
\narbitrator in  all the\tseven cases and further directed the
\npapers to  be sent  to him,  asking him\t to give  his  award
\nwithin
\n1001<\/span>
\ntwo months from that date. If the respondent’s contention in
\nthese  A   appeals  is\tcorrect\t that  after  appointing  an
\narbitrator under  section 8(2)<\/a>\tthe  court  ceases  to\thave
\njurisdiction and  cannot make  an order\t of  reference,\t the
\nfurther directions  given in  the order of February 13, 1950
\nwere  invalid.\t However,  the\t question  did\t not  assume
\nimportance at that stage because both sides agreed to submit
\nthe disputes to Col. Ranbir Singh for arbitration. After the
\narbitration  had  made\tsome  progress,\t Col.  Ranbir  Singh
\nreturned the  papers to\t the court  on being  asked  not  to
\nproceed further\t by the\t Government counsel who thought that
\nthe arbitrator\twas not competent to deal with the questions
\nof law\tarising for decision. After this the District Judge,
\nMeerut, transferred  the cases\tto the\tJudge of  the  Small
\nCause Court,  Meerut, presumably  on the assumption that the
\nrespondent’s  applications   for  the\tappointment  of\t  an
\narbitrator were\t pending. If  the respondents  contention is
\nright, this  was an  erroneous assumption,  but no objection
\nwas raised  at the  time  and  the  Judge of the Small Cause
\nCourt  by  his\torder  dated  February\t13,  1951  appointed
\nDirector of  Farms, General  Headquarters, Simla,  to act as
\narbitrator in  all the\tseven cases. In that order the court
\nfurther directed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “All these  cases should  be referred\t to him\t for
\n     arbitration. He must file his award within one month of
\n     this order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The papers  were then  sent to\tBrigadier H. L. Bhandari who
\nwas. said  to  be  the\tofficer\t concerned.  The  respondent
\napplied to  the court  on March\t 8, 1951  for review  of the
\norder alleging\tthat the  office of  the Director  of Farms,
\nGeneral Headquarters,  Simla, had been abolished and as such
\nBrig. H.  L. Bhandari  could not be the officer mentioned in
\nthe  order.   The  respondent  did  not\t take  part  in\t the
\nproceedings be\tfore Brig. Bhandari, but before he moved the
\ncourt on  May 4, 1951 for stay of the proceedings before the
\narbitrator, the\t latter had made his awards which were filed
\nin court  on that  very\t day.  The  review  application\t was
\nultimately dismissed on May 12, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  made seven\t applications urging several
\ngrounds for  setting aside  the awards, but the Judge of the
\nsmall Cause  Court, Meerut,  overruled\tall  objections\t and
\nconferred the  awards, and a decree in terms of the award in
\neach case was passed on May 26, 1952. Against that order the
\nrespondent preferred  seven appeals  to the  Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt. The  High Court\tallowed the  appeals  accepting\t the
\ncontention  that   the\tcourt\twas  functus  officio  after
\nappointing the\tarbitrator under  section 8(2)<\/a>\tand  had  no
\njurisdiction to\t refer the cases to the arbitrator. The High
\nCourt was  of the  view that it was for the parties to refer
\ntheir disputes\tto the\tarbitrator after he was appointed by
\nthe court,  and the  reference by  the court  being  without
\njurisdiction the awards were invalid. The High Court further
\nheld that  when the  court below made the order of reference
\nthere  was   no\t post\tof  Director   of   Farms,   General
\nHeadquarters,  Simla,  in  existence  and,  as\tsuch,  Brig.
\nBhandari was not competent to act as arbitrator on the basis
\nof the\torder dated  February 13,  1951. The  Union of Indra
\nquestions the  correctness of  the High\t Court’s decision in
\nthese appeals.\n<\/p>\n
1002<\/span><\/p>\n
     The validity of the order of reference depends upon the
\nscope of  section 8<\/a>  which deals with the power of the court
\nto appoint  an arbitrator  or  umpire.\tSub-section  (1)  of
\nsection 8<\/a>, so far as it is relevant for the present purpose,
\nprovides that  if any  appointed arbitrator  is incapable of
\nacting, and  the arbitration agreement does not show that it
\nwas intended  that the\tvacancy should\tnot be supplied, any
\nparty to  the agreement\t may serve  the other parties with a
\nwritten notice\tto concur  in supplying\t the  vacancy.\tSub-
\nsection (2) of section 8<\/a> lays down that if no appointment is
\nmade within 15 days after the service of the said notice the
\nCourt may,  on the  application of  the party  who gave\t the
\nnotice and after giving the; other parties an opportunity of
\nbeing heard” appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators “who shall
\nhave like  powers to  act in  the reference  and to  make an
\naward as  if he or they had been appointed by consent of all
\nparties\t ‘.   The  question  is\t whether,  having  made\t the
\nappointment, the  court acting sub-section (2) can also make
\nan  order   of\treference   to\tthe   arbitrator.  The\t Act<\/a>
\ncontemplates three  kinds of  arbitration:  (i)\t arbitration
\nwithout intervention of a court, dealt with in chapter II of
\nthe Act\t which\tincludes  section  3<\/a>  to  section  19<\/a>;\t(ii)
\narbitration with  intervention of  a court where there is no
\nsuit pending,  dealt with  in chapter  III which consists of
\nonly one  section, viz. section 20<\/a>; and (iii) arbitration in
\nsuits which  is covered\t by chapter IV. It is clear from the
\nprovisions of  chapter II  that\t after\tthe  appointment  of
\narbitrator, the\t proceedings are to be outside court, and up
\nto the\tstage of  filing the  award intervention of court is
\nnot of\tunless any  occasion arises  requiring the  court to
\nremove the  arbitrator under  section 11<\/a>.  An  agreement  to
\nsubmit differences  to arbitration  implies an\tagreement to
\nrefer  the  differences\t to  the  arbitrator.  Section\tonly
\nempowers the  court  to\t appoint  an  arbitrator  where\t the
\nparties\t do  not  concur  in  the  appointment.\t Section  20<\/a>
\noccurring  in\tchapter\t  III.\t contains   provisions\t for
\narbitration with  the intervention of a court where there is
\nno suit pending. Section 20<\/a> reads:\n<\/p>\n
     Application to file in Court arbitration agreement.
\n\t  “20(l) Where\tany persons  have  entered  into  an
\n     arbitration agreement  before the\tinstitution  of\t any
\n     suit  with\t  respect  to\tthe  subject-matter  of\t the
\n     agreement or any part of it, and where a difference has
\n     arisen to\twhich the  agreement applies  they or any of
\n     them, instead of proceeding under Chapter II, may apply
\n     to a  Court having\t jurisdiction in the matter to which
\n     the agreement  relates, that  the agreement be filed in
\n     court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) The  application shall be in writing and shall
\n     be numbered  and registered  as a\tsuit between  one or
\n     more of  the  parties  interested\tor  claiming  to  be
\n     interested\t as   plain  tiff   or\tplaintiffs  and\t the
\n     remainder\tas   defendant\t or   defendants,   if\t the
\n     application has  been presented  by an the parties, or,
\n     if otherwise,  between the\t applicant as  plaintiff and
\n     the other parties as defendants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1003<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (3) on  such application  being  made,  the  Court
\n     shall direct  notice thereof to be given to all parties
\n     to the  agreement other  than the applicants, requiring
\n     them to  show cause  within the  time specified  in the
\n     notice why the agreement should not be filed.
\n\t  (4) Where  no sufficient cause is shown, the Court
\n     shall order  the agreement\t to be filed, and shall make
\n     an order  of reference  to the  arbitrator appointed by
\n     the parties, whether in the agreement or otherwise, or,
\n     where the\tparties cannot\tagree upon an arbitrator, to
\n     an arbitrator appointed by the Court.
\n\t  (5) Thereafter  the arbitration  shall proceed  in
\n     accordance with,  and shall  be governed  by, the other
\n     provisions of  this Act,  so far  as they\tcan be\tmade
\n     applicable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This section  confers  power  on  the  court  to  order\t the
\nagreement to  be filed\tand, further,  to make\tan order  of
\nreference to  the arbitrator  appointed by  the parties, or,
\nwhere the  parties cannot  agree upon  an appointment, to an
\narbitrator  appointed  by  the\tcourt.\tSub-section  (1)  of
\nsection 20<\/a> makes it plain that the provisions of the section
\ncan be\tavailed of only if no providing under chapter II has
\nbeen initiated.\t Section 8<\/a>  does not  contain any  provision
\nempowering the\tcourt to  make an  order of reference to the
\narbitrator as  one finds  in subsection\t (4) of\t section 20<\/a>.
\nThus it\t seems clear that the court in the instant cases had
\nno  jurisdiction,   after  appointing  an  arbitrator  under
\nsection 8(2)<\/a>,  to proceed further to make an order referring
\nthe disputes to the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  which now  arises is\t whether the  awards
\ncould be  set aside  as invalid\t because the  reference\t was
\nincompetent. Section  30<\/a> of  the  Act  which  sets  out\t the
\ngrounds for setting aside an award is in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     Grounds for setting aside award.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “30. An award shall not be set aside except on one
\n     or more of the following grounds, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted
\n\t       him self or the proceedings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\tthat an\t award has been made after his issue
\n\t       of an  order by\tthe  Court  superseding\t the
\n\t       arbitration or  after arbitration proceedings
\n\t       have become invalid under section 35<\/a>;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  that an award has been improperly procured or
\n\t       is otherwise invalid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to  the respondent an award obtained on an invalid
\nreference is  also invalid  and is  covered by clause (c) of
\nsection 30<\/a>. It was argued on behalf of the appellant, on the
\nauthority of  the Privy\t Council in Chhabbe Lal v. Kallu Lal
\nand others<\/a>(1), that the
\n1004<\/span>
\nwords “otherwise  invalid” in  section 30(c)<\/a> did not cover a
\ncase where  the award  was challenged  on the ground of some
\ninvalidity attaching  to anything  outside the award itself.
\nIn Chhabbe  Lal’s  case\t the  Privy  Council  held  that  an
\nobjection to  the validity of a reference to arbitration did
\nnot come  within the  provisions of  paragraph 15 of the 2nd
\nschedule  to  the  Code\t of  Civil  Procedure,\t1908,  which
\nprovided that  no award was to be set aside except on the sp
\ncivic  grounds\t mentioned  therein,  or  the  award  “being
\notherwise invalid”.  This view\twhich affirms  that of Iqbal
\nAhmed J. in his dissenting judgment in a Full Bench decision
\nof the\tAllahabad High Court, Mt. Mariam v. Mt. Amisa<\/a>(l) was
\ntaken in relation to an award on a reference made in a suit.
\nTheir Lordships observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…. all  the powers\t conferred on  the court  in
\n     relation to  an award  on a  reference made  in a\tsuit
\n     presuppose a valid reference on which an award has been
\n     made which\t may be\t open to  question. If\tthere is  no
\n     valid reference,  the purported award is a nullity, and
\n     can be challenged in any appropriate proceeding.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There was  no provision in the 2nd schedule to the Choice of
\nCivil Procedure,  which was repealed by the Arbitration Act<\/a>,
\n1940, like  section 32<\/a>\tor section 33<\/a> of the Act. Section 32<\/a>
\nbars  the   institution\t of   suits  concerning\t arbitration
\nagreements  or\tawards\tand  provides  that  no\t arbitration
\nagreement or award shall bet set aside,, amended, . modified
\nor in  anyway affected\totherwise than\tas provided  in this
\nAct;  section  33<\/a>  says\t that  a  party\t to  an\t arbitration
\nagreement seeking  to challenge\t the agreement\tor the award
\nmust do\t so by\tmaking an application to the court. When the
\n2nd schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure was in force, an
\naward made  on an  invalid reference could be set aside only
\nby  filing   a\tsuit   which  was   then  the\t“appropriate
\nproceeding”, but now the proceeding appropriate for the same
\npurpose is  an application to the court as the respondent in
\nthese cases  has done.\tAlso, these are cases of arbitration
\nwithout the  intervention of  court, and the obsenation from
\nthe judgment  in Chhabe\t Lal’s case,  quoted above,  that  a
\nreference in  a suit  should  be  presumed  to\tbe  a  valid
\nreference, does\t not apply  to these cases. The words “or is
\notherwise invalid”  in clause  (c) of  section 30<\/a>  are\twide
\nenough to cover all forms of invalidity including invalidity
\nof the\treference. We do not find any reason why the general
\nand unqualified language of clause (c) should not include an
\naward on  an invalid reference which is a nullity. The cases
\ncited at the Bar show that all the High Courts with only one
\nor two\texceptions have\t taken this view. We hold  therefore
\nthat the  awards challenged  in these  appeals are nullities
\nand have  been rightly\tset aside  by the High Court. In the
\nview we\t have taken  that is  not necessary  to consider the
\nother question,\t whether Brig.\tBhandari who made the awards
\nwas the\t officer answering  the description  on Director  of
\nFarms, General\tHeadquarters, Simla,  to whom  the court had
\nreferred the  disputes. In  the result\tthe appeals fail and
\nare dismissed with costs. One set of hearing fee.
\nP.H.P.\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
1005<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1745, 1976 SCR (3) 998 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: OM PARKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/04\/1976 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. SINGH, JASWANT CITATION: 1976 AIR 1745 1976 SCR (3) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-263388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-01T07:38:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T07:38:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2709,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T07:38:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-01T07:38:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976","datePublished":"1976-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T07:38:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976"},"wordCount":2709,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976","name":"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T07:38:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-om-parkash-on-2-april-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263388","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}