Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Partnership Firm in Arbitration Dispute — Validity of Contract Affirmed.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a contract entered into by a partnership firm consisting of nine partners, including Satya Narain, who submitted a tender to supply 1000 quintals of Gram Dal. The tender was accepted, but the firm later breached the contract, prompting the respondents to seek arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Additional District Judge allowed the application for arbitration, which was upheld by the High Court. The appellant contended that under Section 19(2)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Satya Narain lacked the authority to refer the dispute for arbitration. The Supreme Court found that none of the partners disputed the validity of the contract or objected to Satya Narain's actions at the time of the tender submission, indicating ratification of the contract. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was binding on all partners, and the reference for arbitration was within jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. The court noted that the original contract contained an arbitration clause, and the absence of objections from other partners further validated the contract. The court did not find any illegality in the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Partnership Law - Authority of Partners - Implied Authority to Refer Disputes - Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 19(2)(a) - The court held that the implied authority of a partner does not empower him to submit a dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration in the absence of any usage or custom to the contrary. However, the court found that the other partners ratified the contract by not objecting to the tender submitted by the partner on behalf of the firm, thus binding them to the arbitration clause. (Paras 544-545).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a partner had the authority to refer a dispute for arbitration on behalf of the partnership firm.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order that the arbitration reference was valid and binding on the partnership firm.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Partnership Authority
  • Implied Authority
  • Jurisdiction
  • Ratification
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1991 LawText (SC) (10) 32

Civil Appeal No. 1677 of 1984

1991-10-22

K. Ramaswamy, Yogeshwar Dayal

1992 AIR 481, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 542, 1992 SCC (1) 145, JT 1991 (5) 355, 1991 SCALE (2) 983

S.K. Jain, Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Sudhanshu Atreya, C.K. Sucharita, Y. Prabhakara Rao, Ganpathi Iyer Gopalkrishnan

Sanganer Dal and Flour Mill

F.C.I. and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the validity of a contract and arbitration reference.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to challenge the arbitration reference made by the court.

Filing Reason

The respondents filed for arbitration due to breach of contract by the appellant.

Previous Decisions

The Additional District Judge allowed the arbitration reference, which was confirmed by the High Court.

Issues

Whether a partner had the authority to refer a dispute for arbitration on behalf of the partnership firm. Whether the other partners ratified the contract by their inaction.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that there was no implied authority under Section 19(2)(a) of the Partnership Act for one partner to refer disputes to arbitration. The respondents contended that the contract was valid and binding on all partners due to their ratification.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the implied authority of a partner to conduct business includes entering into contracts, and the absence of objection from other partners constituted ratification of the contract, thus binding them to the arbitration clause.

Judgment Excerpts

The operation of Secs. 18 & 19(1) is subject to the exceptions engrafted in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19. None of the partners have entered into the witness box to deny the validity of the contract nor raised any objection that they had not authorised the partner (Satya Narain) to enter into the contract.

Procedural History

The Additional District Judge allowed the arbitration reference, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court heard the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Partnership Act: 19(2)(a)
  • Arbitration Act: 20
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Revision Against Order Allowing Production of Original Documents in Summary Suit. Order XXXVII Rule 7 CPC permits application of general CPC provisions for filing originals of photocopies already on record.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Petitioners in Haryana General Sales Tax Act Case — Clarifies Taxation Categories for Sales. Categorizations of sales under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were clarified, impacting the applicability of purchase tax.