UTKAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION versus CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD

UTKAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION versus CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD

The Supreme Court held that the right to apply under Section 8 did not accrue on the expiry of the contract but only after the requirements of Section 8 were fulfilled, namely after failure to secure concurrence within 15 days of notice. Since the applications to both Calcutta High Court and the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, were within three years from such accrual, the application was not barred by limitation.

Parties
Appellant: Utkal Commercial Corporation; Respondent: Central Coal Fields Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Patna High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 116/80
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. Order of the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, restored.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Arbitrator, Computation of Limitation Period, Section 8 Arbitration Act, Article 137 Limitation Act
Arbitration Limitation Appointment of Arbitrator Computation of Limitation Period Section 8 Arbitration Act Article 137 Limitation Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Utkal Commercial Corporation

Appellant

Central Coal Fields Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Patna High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 116/80

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator was barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the right to apply under Section 8 did not accrue on the expiry of the contract but only after the requirements of Section 8 were fulfilled, namely after failure to secure concurrence within 15 days of notice. Since the applications to both Calcutta High Court and the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, were within three years from such accrual, the application was not barred by limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. Order of the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, restored.

Orders

  • Set aside the impugned order of Patna High Court.
  • Restore the order of Sub-Judge, Ranchi.