Holding

The Supreme Court held that the dispute must be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause and that Article 142 cannot be invoked to override the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Summary

Bharat Sewa Sansthan, a charitable society, leased premises to U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. under a lease that contained an arbitration clause. The society sued for recovery of rent arrears, water and sewerage taxes, and interest, while the corporation moved for reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The trial court rejected the corporation's applications, but the Allahabad High Court allowed the Section 8 application and directed the matter to arbitration, taking photocopies of the lease into record. The society appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, arguing that arbitration would delay justice. The Court held that the existence of a valid arbitration clause makes the dispute arbitrable and that Article 142 cannot be used to bypass the statutory arbitration procedure, and therefore dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order.

Issues considered

The dispute is arbitrable under the arbitration clause in the lease agreement.
Whether the Supreme Court can, under Article 142 of the Constitution, grant relief on rent arrears, taxes and interest notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Whether photocopies of the lease agreement may be admitted under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act to ascertain the arbitration clause.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 8(1)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XI Rule 14
Constitution of Indias. 142

Subjects

ArbitrationSection 8Article 142Lease agreementArbitration clauseRent arrearsWater and sewerage taxInterestSupreme CourtCivil appeal

Judgment

BHARATSEWASANSTHAN A
v.
U.P. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD.

AUGUST 29, :2007

(H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) B

Arbitration Act, .1940:

s.8-Photocopies of the lease agreement could be taken on record
,uls. 8 for ascertaining the existence of arbitration clause. C
Object of Act-Discussed.

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 142-Arbitration agreement-Suii' for recovery of arrears of D
rent and ejectment of respondent~Corporaiion from demised premises-
Respondent-Corp·oration seeking appointment of arbitrator in view of
arbitration agreement-Rejected by District Judge-Writ petition allo'Wed by
High Court-Challenge against-Held, it is not a fit case to grant relief to
appellant-Sansthan as claimed by it which is vehemently disputed by E
resporident-Corporation-Dispute raised by parties .10 he adjudicated by
arbitrator on its own merit in accordance with law-Arbitration Act, 1940-
S.8(1).

Article I 42-Power under-Scope and ambit of-Discussed.
. .F
In November 1980, the respondent-Corporation took from the appellant-
Sansthan an area measuring 14,925 sq. ft. on monthly rent under a lease
agreement. In June 1981, the respondent-Corporation took an additional
accommodation measuring 3000 sq. ft. area on monthly rent for setting up
Office of its subsidiary company. The appellant-Sansthan filed suit for recovery
of arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent-Corporation from the G
demised premises. In the trial Court, the respondent-Corporation preferred
two applications, i.e. one under s. 8(1) of the Arbitration Act and second under
Order XI Rule 14 CPC for summoning of the original lease deed from the
appellant-Sansthan. The Additional District Judge rejected both the

533 H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A applications.
The respondent-Corporation filed writ petition before the High Court.
It was the specific case of the respondent-Corporation before the High Court
that the original agreements are in the possession of the appellant-Sansthan,
and it had placed on record the photocopies of the agreements along with an
B application under s. 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. ·

The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Trial Court
has wrongly rejected the application under s.8 of the Arbitration Act as the
subject-matter of the suit is arbitral with further direction to the Additional
C District Judge to refer the matter to .arbitration. Hence the present appeaL

The appellant-Sansthan contended that this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete
justice to the appellant-Sansthan is empowered to pass an order of payment
of arrears towards water and sewerage tax and payment of interest at the rate
D of 12% p.a. on the arrears of rent in terms of the agreement and that sending
the matter at this stage to the Arbitrator will prolong the agony of the
appellant-Sansthan in getting its legitimate claims settled as per the
calculation statement submitted before this Court in terms of its interi8' >
orders.

E The respondent-Corporation contended that the balance amount of
arrears of rent, payment of water and sewerage tax and the amount of interest
as claimed by the appellant-Sansthan in its calculation statement cannot be
decided by this Court in the absence of any satisfactory and tangible evidence
appearing on record of this appeal and in terms of the clause of the Agreement,
this Court will be slow in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
F Constitution of India as the parties are governed by the procedure of the -'"If.
Arbitration Act, which is speedy and less expensive for effectin adjudication
of the dispute in issue.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G HELD: 1. The High Court, has rightly held that the photocopies of the
lease agreen:ients could be taken on record under s.8 of the Arbitration Act,
1940 for ascertaining the existence of arbitration clause. Thus, in terms of
the arbitration clause contained in the lease agreement the dispute raised by
I. ·- -·- •

the appellant-Sansthan against the respondent-Corporation is arbitral.
H (Para 21) )545-F, GI
BHARATSEWASANSTHAN". U.P.ELECTRONICSCORPN.LTD. 535

2. The nature and ambit of the power of this Court under Article 142 of A
the Constitution of India, is meant to do complete justice between the litigating
parties, but at the same time the power is conceived to meet the situations
which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions
oflaw. Human and equitable approach should be balanced to do complete justice
to both the parties and not be tilted in favour of either party without ignoring
the statutory provisions. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can grant B
appropriate relief where there is some manifest illegality, or where there is
manifest want of jurisdiction,or where some palpable injustice is shown to

• have resulted to the parties. (Para 22) (546-B, CJ

3. In the light of factual aspects, the claim relating to balance arrears C
of rent, balance arrears of water and sewerage tax and rate of interest on
payment of arrears of rent raised by the appellant-Sansthan in its calculation
statement filed before this Court is at variance with the calculation statement
submitted by the respondent-Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has
denied the payment of interest to the appellant-Sansthan. The disputed claims
can be appropriately tackled and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator in terms D
of the arbitration clause. The main objectives of the Arbitratioh Act is to make
provision for an arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of
meeting the needs of the specific arbitration and to minimise the supervisory
role of courts in the arbitral process and to permit an arbitral Tribunal to
use mediation, conciliation or other procedures during the arbitral E
proceedings in settlement of disputes, etc. This Court ordinarily will not be
obliged to bypass the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. {Para 23) {546-C, D, E, FJ

,.._ 4. In the backdrop, it is not a fit case to grant relief to the appellant- F
Sansthan as claimed by it in its calculation statement which is vehemently
disputed by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the contention of the
appellant-Sansthan that this Court can grant the payment of balance amount
of arrears of rent and arrears of water and sewerage tax and interest on
arrears of rent detailed in calculation statement submitted before this Court,
does not merit acceptance. The dispute raised by the parties shall be G
adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator(s) on its own merit in accordance with law.
(Paras 24 and 28) {546-G; 547-D\

CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2006.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2004 of the High Court H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A of Judicature at Allahabad sitting at Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 3388 of2004
(M/S).

Shanti Bhushan, Sumeet Sharma, Sanjai K. Pathak and Prashant Bhushan
for the Appellant.

B Manoj Swarup and Lalita Kohli (for Mis Manoj Swarup & Co.) for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. I. Bharat Sewa Sansthan has filed
' appeal challenging the final judgment and order dated 14.09.2004 of the
.this
•
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench, in Writ Petition.No. 3388/2004(MS) by which the order of the learned
Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act) Lucknow, dismissing the
application filed by the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred
to as the 'respondent-Corporation'] under Section 8 of the Arbitration and
D Conciliation Act, 1996, has been set aside with direction to the learned
Additional ~istrict Judge to refer the matter to arbitration and both the parties
are directed to appoint their Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the :>
lease agreement.

2. Backgrou,nd facts in a nutshell are as follows:
E
13harat Sewa Sansthan [hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant-Sansthan]
is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The
main object of the appellant-Sansthan is to work for the social, economic,
educational and cultural upliftment qf the people. The appellant-Sansthan is
F the sole and excJusive owner of multi-storeyed building known as "Chandra
Bhanu Gupta Smarak Nav Chetna Kendra" located at No. l 0, Ashok Marg in
the city of Lucknow (U -~ .). On 11.11. I 980, the respondent-Corporation took
for office accommodation an area measuring 14,925 square feet on the first
floor of the multi-storeyed building of the appellant-Sansthan on monthly rent
of Rs. 47,760/- @ Rs. 3.20p per square foot, which comprised (a) basic rent
G @ Rs. 2/- per square foot amounting to Rs. 29,850/- and (b) the balance
amount of Rs. 17,910/-@ Rs. l.20p per square foot towards the ancillary
services provided for the said accommodation in the form of elevators (lifts),
a designated area for parking of vehicles, lights for public and common '::>-
passages and sewerages etc. under a lease granted by the appellant-Sansthan
H to the respondent-Corporation on 01.12.1980.
BHARATSEWA SANSllIAN ''· U.P. ELECTRONICSCORPN. LTD. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.J 537

3. It is the case of the appellant-Sansthan that in the month of June, A
1981 the respondent-Corporation expressed its requirement to the appellant-
Sansthan for some additional accommodation on the first floor of the building
adjoining to the accommodation which the respondent-Corporation had earlier
occupied for setting up a Marketing Office and a Registered Office of Mis
Uptron India Limited, which is the subsidiary of the respondent-Corporation. B
Mis Uptron India Limited was established for the manufacturing of electronic
equipments and components, such as the television, computer, capacitors,
process control, EPABX systems etc. It was mutually agreed between the
appellant-Sansthan and the respondent-Corporation that additional
accommodation measuring 3000 sq. ft. in area shall be leased out to the
respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 25.06.1981 on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,7501- i.e. C
@Rs. 3.20 per sq. ft., which comprised of (a) basic rent@ RS. 21- per sq. ft.
amounting to Rs. 60001- and (b) balance amount of Rs. 37501-@ Rs. 1.20p.
per sq. ft. towards such ancillary charges as has been included in the case
of the lease in respect of the first portion of the accommodation let out to
the respondent-Corporation.
D
4. It is further the case of the appellant-Sansthan that the tenancy of
both the portions of the accommodation let out to the respondent-Corporation
had continued without any interruption from the respective dates of
commencement of lease, subject to periodical escalation of the rent including
other charges on the basis of mutual agreement with the result that the E
consolidated monthly rent of the two portions of the accommodation let out
to the respondent-Corporation had risen to Rs. 79,083.75p. (Rupees Seventy
nine thousand and eighty three and seventy five paise only) well before
29.07.1999, on which day the lease was determined. The appellant-Sansthan
on 10.03.2000 filed Suit No. 1612000 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent
against the respondent-Corporation in the Court of learned Additional District F
Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act) at Lucknow. In the said suit, the respondent-
Corporation presented two applications before the Trial Court before filing of
the written statement. The first application being C-12 was moved under
Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "Arbitration
Act") and the second application No.C-17 was filed under Order XI Rule 14
of the Civil Procedure Code for summoning of the original lease deeds from G
the appellant-Sansthan.

5. Learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow,
had rejected both the above-said applications. Being aggrieved, the
respondent-Corporation has assailed the order of the Trial Court by way of H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A Writ Petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court allowed the writ petition and held that the learned Trial Court has
wrongly rejected the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act as the
subject-matter of the suit is arbitral with further direction to the learned
Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, to refer the
B matter to arbitration and both the parties may appoint their Arbitrator as per
the arbitration clause in the lease agreement.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Sansthan has filed this appeal, by
special leave, challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
c 7. When the matter came up before the Court on 24.03.2006, this Court
passed the following orders:-

"I.A. No. 2 of 2005 is allowed.

Leave granted.
D
Since this appeal pertains to a charitable institution and appears to be
an urgent matter, the appeal shall be placed on Board for expeditious
final hearing on 11th July, 2006."

8. It appears from the record that the appeal was called on for hearing
E on 11.07.2006, when the following-order came to be passed:-

"The case was argued at length by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant. We also heard reply on certain
preliminary issues from Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the
respondents. We also permit Mr. Manoj Swamp to file additional
F documents in this appeal"

In the meanwhile, the respondent- U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited
shall handover peaceful vacant possession of the area which was
under the occupation of Mis. Uptron Limited, sub-lessee of respondent
No. 1 herein, within one week from today. This Court will decide the
G arrears of rent payable by Uptron Limited at the next hearing. In the
meantime, U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited shall pay entire arrears
of rent for the portion in their occupation at the admitted rate.

Since some details are required, we direct both the parties to file a
memo of calculation before this Court so that this Court will be in a
H
BHARATSEWASANSTHAN 1·. U.P. ELECTRONICSCORPN. LTD. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.J 539

position to pass a detailed order. Treat this matter as part-heard. A
Post this matter at 2.00 p.m. on 12th July, 2006."

9. On 12.07.2006, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads as
follows:-
B
"After hearing both the parties, we passed the following order on l lth
July,2006.

"The case was argued at length by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant. We also heard reply on certain
preliminary issues from Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the c
respondent. We also permit Mr. Manoj Swarup to file additional
documents in this appeal"

In the meanwhile, the respondent U. P. Electronics Corporation Ltd.
shall handover peaceful vacant possession of the area which was D
under the occupation of Mis UPTRON LTD., sub-lessee of respondent
No. I herein, within one week from today. This Court will decide the
arrears of rent payable by the UPTRON Ltd. at the next hearing. In
the meantime, U. P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., shall pay entire
arrears of rent for the portion in their occupation at the admitted rate. E
Since some details are required, we direct both the parties to file a
memo of calculation before this Court so that this Court will be in a
position to pass a detailed order. Treat this matter as part-heard.

Post this matter at 2.00 PM on 12th July, 2006." F
As directed Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation placed before us a Fax Message from U.P. Electronics
Corporation Limited in regard to the total rent payable to the appellant
upto 30.06.2006. The Fax Message reads thus:
G
"U.P. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD.
Total rent payable to BSS upto 30.06.2006

H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A Financial Rent UIL UPLC TDS Paid
year
1 2 3 4 5
Upto 3556068.75 2367966.75 1188104.00 218145.00
31.3.2001
B 2001-2002 948285.00 558742.50 389542.50 85700.00
2002-2003 948285.00 558742.50 389542.50 85700.00
2003-2004 948285.00 558742.50 389542.50 85700.00
2004-2005 948285.00 558742.50 389542.50 85700.00
2005-2006 948285.00 558742.50 389542.50 85700.00
c
l.04.06- 133335.00 0 133335.00 0
30.6.06
TOTAL 8430830.75 5161682.25 3269155.50 646650.00

Frortl 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006@ Rs. 44445/- per month (50% proposed to
D be retained)

UPLC Liability - Rs.2622505.50 (payable as per area occupied and >
approved by the Management)
UPLC UIL
E Rent of Front Portion ·
64923.75 x 12 =Area 14925@ 779085.2 389542.50 389542.50
Rs. 4.35 per sq. ft.
Rent of Rear Portion
14100 x 12 =Area 3000@ Rs. 169200 - 169200.00
4.72 per sq. ft. (exclusively in
.
F
the use of UPTRON)
Total Rent per annum 948285.00 389542.50 558742.50

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is some discrepancy
in regard to the calculation of rent payable as per the agreement. We,
G therefore, as an interim measure, without going into the correctness of the
statement now placed before us, direct the U.P. Electronics Corporation
Limited to pay a sum of Rs. 32,69.155.50 to the appellant herein within four
,. weeks from today. The U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited has also deducted
the tax in a sum of Rs. 6,46,650/-. Thus, as per the fax message, the rent is
H calculated upto 30.6.2006. We, therefore, direct U.P. Electronics Corporation
,
__

BHARAT SEWA SANSTHAN v. U.P. ELEClRONICS CORPN. LTD. [LOKESHW AR SINGH PANTA, J.)541

Limited to pay rent from 1st July, 2006 to the appellant herein for the actual A
..,.. area in their occupation as per the tenns of the agreement.

The rent shall be paid on or before I 0th of every succeeding month
without any default. The respondent shall hand over peaceful vacant
possession to the appellant herein within one week from today the
portion in the occupation of UPTRON India Limited, a sub-lessee of B
respondent No. I herein, which according to respondent no. l is 60%
of the total area namely, 17,925 sq. ft. This Court will decide the arrears
of rent payable by the UPTRON India Limited at the time of final
·hearing.

It is also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that U.P. C
Electronics Corporation Limited has not paid the electricity charges
and water and sewerage taxes to the authorities concerned in full. The
U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited is directed to pay the entire
arrears to the authorities concerned within four week from today.

This order is passed as an interim measure without prejudice to the D
rights and contentions of both the parties. It is open to· both the
parties to file additional documents.

Treat this matter as part-heard. Post after six weeks for reporting
compliance of the aforesaid directions. Pendency of this appeal before
this Court will not prevent the parties from settling the matter amicably." E
10. The appeal was listed for hearing on 08.09.2006, when further
following order was recorded:-

"Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed before us a fresh
calculation memo with the Statement of Accounts duly stamped by a F
Chartered Accountant. Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent seeks time to respond to the Memo of
Calculation filed now. Three weeks' time is granted for the purpose.
The respondent is directed to file reply to this Calculation Memo
within the said time. Parties will discuss further in regard to the G
possession and re-adjustment of the areas and file reply thereto.

Further directions will be made on the next adjourned date of hearing."

11. On 7.11.2006, upon hearing the counsel on both sides, this Court
made the following order:-
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A "Memo of Understanding between the parties to this appeal filed in
this Court, pursuant tq this Court's order dated 8.9.2006, is taken on
record. A rough sketch plan is also attached to the Memo of Settlement.
Clause (c) of the Memo says that the respondent, namely, U.P.
Electronics Corporation Limited will vacate the portion marked in pink
as per the map within two weeks frnm date of Memo of Understanding
B i.e. I 0.10.2006. It is now represented by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for the appellant that in spite of the undertaking under clause
(c) of Memo of Settlement, the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited
have not vacated the entire portion marked in pink and also constructed
wall separating the pink and green marked portion. Since the
...
c undertaking has not been complied by Mis. U.P. Electronics Corporation
Limited further time is given to them to comply with the undertaking
by three weeks from day. The clause (c) of the Memorandum shall be
complied with in full and the entire portion shall be handed over to
the appellant within that time and also the construction of the wall
shall be completed in time.
D
When the matter came up for hearing on 8.9.2006, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent had sought some time to respond
to the Memo of Calcutat-ion filed and that three weeks' time was
granted for the purpose. So far no response ha5 been filed to the
Memo of Calculation. The r~spondent is directed to file the response
E to Memo of Calculatioh within two weeks from today.

Call after four weeks for reporting compliance."

12. Again on 26.02.2007, the following order came to be passed:-

F "Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant placed
before us a Statement in respect of the amount due in regard to 60%
area occupied b y the respondent and their subsidiaries upto June,
2006. A copy of the said Statement has also been furnished to the
I-
learned counsel for the respondent. Post after two weeks for filing
response by the respondent."
G
13. In terms of the above extracted interim orders passed by this Court
on a number of hearings, the appellant-Sansthan submitted its statement of
accounts in which a total sum of Rs. 95,09,467.50 has been claimed as arrears
of rent for the Front Block and the Tower Block, measuring 17,925 sq. ft. of
H area, out of which a sum of Rs.32,69, 155.50 in terms of interim order dated
BHARAT SEWA SANSlHAN v. U.P. ELEClRONICS CORPN. LTD. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 54J

12.07.2006 passed by this Court has been paid to the appellant-Sansthan by A
the respondent-Corporation for 40% area in its occupation. In addition to the
arrears of rent from July 1997 to June 2006, the appellant-Sansthan has
claimed a sum ofRs.6,46,645.00 in regard to TDS Certificates. Further, a sum
ofRs.13,38,492.43 has been claimed on account of water & sewerage tax from
July 1997 to June 2006. The appellant-Sansthan has also claimed a sum of
Rs.40,95,867/- on account of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrears of B
rent in relation to 15,925 sq. ft. area which was let out to the respondent-
Corporation in the year 1980.

14. In response to the order of this Court, the respondent-Corporation
has filed affidavit dated 18,. 11.2006 along with details of calculations of arrears C
of rent of 40% area; arrears of rent of 60% area and also details of calculation
of amount for water & sewerage tax. The stand of the respondent-Corporation
in the affidavit is that in pursuance to the interim order of this Court dated
12.07 .2006, a sum of Rs.32,69, 155.50 towards arrears of rent (Rs.25,95,310.50
as rent and Rs.6, 73,845.00 as TDS] for the 40% portion, which was actually
occupied by the respondent-Corporation, has been paid to the appellant- D
Sansthan. The respondent-Corporation stated that as per its statement of
calculation and after deduction of the amount already paid in pursuance to
the interim order of this Court, the amount payable in respect of the portion
which was under occupation ofM/s Uptron India Limited and the possession
thereof has already been handed over to the appellant-Sansthan (subject to E
the adjustment made in the MOU dated 10.10.2006) comes to Rs.75,47,368.50
which is more than what has been calculated and indicated by the appellant-
Sansthan in paragraph 6 of its affidavit dated 06.09.2006 and an amount of
Rs.6,46,645.00 is taken into account twice and shown as paid in excess.

15. 1t is also submitted that during the pendency of this case and in F
compliance of order dated 12.07.2006, another sum ofRs.3,97,161.00 was also
paid to the appellant-Sansthan. Thus, the total payment made by the
respondent-Corporation to the appellant-Sansthan towards water & sewerage
tax comes to Rs.5,95,238.80 for the area which is in possession of the
respondent-Corporation. The respondent-Corporation contended that as per
the calculation sheet annexed with the affidavit-in-reply, the balance amount G
comes to Rs.24,558.20 towards water & sewerage tax for the portion in
possession of respondent-Corporation, which is also tendered to the appellant-
Sansthan by Cheque No.275979 dated 12.10.2006 of Andhra Bank, Lucknow.
The balance amount of Rs.9,26,763.00 towards water & sewerage tax is due
in regard to the portion vacated by M/s Uptron India Limited and the H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A possession of that area has already been handed over to the appellant-
Sansthan.

16. The Divisional Incharge (Personnel), working in the respondent-
Corporation in his reply affidavit to calculation statement filed by the appellant-
Sansthan on 26.02.2007, states that in terms of the order dated 12.07.2006 of
B this Hon'ble Court, the entire amount is paid in respect of the portion in
possession of the respondent-Corporation. The possession of 60% area which
was previously in use and occupation of M/s Uptron India Limited, which is
a Sick Industrial Company, has already been given to the appellant-Sansthan
and the payment of rent for the said area is not covered under the directions
C of this Court. It is stated that the calculation chart submitted by the appellant-
Sansthan showing the amount due and payable pertains to 60% portion for
which rent was paid by Mis Uptron India Li!flited through the respondent-
Corporation and the first part of the calculation chart filed by the appellant-
Sansthan indicating total amount of Rs.66,74, 131.50 due, is in respect of 60%
portion of the leased area. It is also stated that the respondent-Corporation
D was always ready and willing to make payment of agreed rent for the portion
under its occupation and, in fact, it had tendered the amount, which was not
accepted by the appellant-Sansthan. It is also stated in the affidavit that
Clause 1(3) of the lease agreement as alleged by the appellant-Sansthan is not
applicable in the present case and as such no interest at the rate of 12%, as
E claimed, is payable and the appellant-Sansthan has calculated the interest on
total amount of rent payable in respect of total area including the one which
was under use and occupation of M/s Uptron India Limited.

17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the
material on record.
F
18. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant-Sansthan, submitted that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction ·
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice to
the appellant-Sansthan is empowered to pass an order of payment of arrears
towards water & sewerage tax and payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
G on the arrears of rent in terms of the agreement. He submitted that sending
the matter at this stage to the Arbitrator will prolong the agony of the
appellant-Sansthan in getting its legitimate claims settled as per the calculation
statement submitted before this Court in terms of its interim orders.
>.
19. Per contra, Shri Manoj Swamp, learned counsel for the respondent-
H Corporation, submitted that the balance amount of arrears of rent, payment
BHARAT SEWA SANSTIIAN v. U.P. ELEC1RONICS CORPN. LTD. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 1.) 545

of water & sewerage tax and the amount of interest as claimed by the A
appellant-Sansthan in its calculation statement cannot be decided by this
Court in the absence of any satisfactory and tangible evidence appearing on
record of this appeal. He next submitted that in terms of the clause of the
Agreement, this Court will be slow in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India as the parties are governed by the procedure
of the Arbitration Act, which is speedy and less expensive for effective B
adjudication of the dispute in issue.

20. We have carefully considered the respective contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties.

21. It is not in dispute that on 11.11.1980 the respondent-Corporation C
took from the appellant-Sansthan an area measuring 14,925 sq. ft. on monthly
rent under a lease agreement. In June 1981, the appellant-Sansthan let out
additional accommodation measuring 3000 sq. ft. area on monthly rent for
setting up Marketing Office of M/s Uptron India Limited, which is the
subsidiary of the respondent-Corporation. The appellant-Sansthan filed suit D
for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent-Corporation
from the demised premises. In the trial court, the respondent-Corporation
preferred two applications, i.e. one under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act
and second under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for summoning of the original lease
deed from the appellant-Sansthan. The learned Additional District Judge
(Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, has rejected both the applications. The E
High Court in writ petition filed by the respondent-Corporation against the
order of the trial court, allowed the application of the respondent-Corporation
filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. It was the specific case of the
respondent-Corporation before the High Court that the original agreements
are in the possession of the appellant-Sansthan, whereas the stand of the F
appellant-Sansthan was that the original agreements are not in its possession.
The respondent-Corporation placed on record of the trial court photocopies
of the agreements along with an application under Section 8(1") of the
Arbitration Act. The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that the
photocopies of the lease agreements could be taken on record under Section
8 of the Arbitration Act for ascertaining the existence of arbitration clause. G
Thus, the dispute raised by the appellant-Sansthan against the respondent·
Corporation in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the lease agreement
is arb itral.

22. Now, the question pressed before us is whether we should, in H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A exercise of our power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India as submitted by Shri Shanti Bhushan, grant the payment of balance
of arrears of rent, payment of balance arrears of water & sewerage tax and
interest on the arrears of rent to the appellant-Sansthan, which amounts are
disputed by the respondent-Corporation before us. The nature and ambit of
the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, no
B doubt, is meant to do complete justice between the litigating parties, but at
the same time this Court has to bear in mind that the power is conceived to
meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by
the existing provisions of law. Human and equitable approach should be
balanced to do complete justice to both the parties and not be tilted in favour
C of either party without ignoring the statutory provisions. This Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction can grant appropriate relief where there is some manifest
illegality, or where there is manifest want of jurisdiction, or where some
palpable injustice is shown to have resulted to the parties.

23. In the light of above factual aspects, the claim relating to balance
D arrears of rent, balance arrears of water & sewerage tax and rate of interest
on payment of arrears of rent raised by the appellant-Sansthan in its calculation
statement filed before this Court is at variance with the calculation statement
submitted by the respondent-Corporation. The respondent~Corporation ·has
denied the payment of interest to the appellant-Sansthan. The above-said
E disputed claims can be appropriately tackled and adjudicated upon by the
Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. The main objectives of the
Arbitration Act is to make provision for an arbitral procedure which is fair,
efficient and capable of meeting the needs of the specific arbitration and to
minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process and to permit
an arbitral Tribunal to use mediation, conciliation or other procedures during
F the arbitral proceedings in settlement of disputes, etc. etc. This Court ordinarily -(.
will not be obliged to bypass the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.

24. In the backdrop of this case, we do not find it a fit case to grant
G relief to the appellant-Sansthan as claimed by it in its calculation statement
which is vehemently disputed by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the
contention of the appellant-Sansthan that this Court can grant the payment
of balance amount of arrears of rent and arrears of water & sewerage tax and
interest on arrears of rent detailed in calculation statement submitted before
H this Court, does not merit acceptance.
BHARATSEWASANSTHANv. U.P.ELEClRONICSCORPN.LID.[LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.J547

25. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, has fairly stated that A
-~
in Civil Suit No.16/2000 the appellant-Sansthan has not claimed the arrears of
rent and water & sewerage tax for the additional area of 2000 sq. ft., which
was subsequently let out to the respondent-Corporation, as such the claim
to that extent in terms of the calculation statement filed before this Court is
not pressed in this appeal. He submitted that for claiming the relief for 2000 B
sq. ft. area, the appellant-Sansthan will take appropriate proceedings before
the Court/Forum. We do not wish to express any views on this aspect of the
matter in this appeal.
.. -
26. In this view of the matter, we do not find any perversity or infirmity
in the order of the High Court to warrant any interference. C
27. For the afore-stated reasons, the appeal deserves and it is accordingly
dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2004 passed in
Writ Petition No.3388 (M/S) of2004 shall stand affirmed. However, the parties
are left to bear their own costs.
D
28. Before parting, we may make it clear that any observation made in
this judgment shall not be construed as an expression of opinioif on the
merits of the case. The dispute raised by the parties shall be adjudicated upon
by the Arbitrator(s) on its own merit in accordance with law.

D.G. Appeal dismissed. E