Civil Appeal No 2286 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 17121986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in SA No 536 of 1985
VM Tarkunde KMK Nair for the Appellants
Mukul Mudgal for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
Special leave granted
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 17th of December 1986
The appeal was 49 filed by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that the eight agreementscontracts executed between it and the defendant No 1 Ms Jayabharat Credit and Investment Company Ltd were not hire purchase agreements  but were agreements relating to transaction of loan and for injunction restraining the defendant No 1
from enforcing them until the decision of the suit had been dismissed on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 32 of the hereinafter called the Act 
Section 32 of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding any law for the time being in force no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be enforced set aside amended modified or in any way affected otherwise than as provided in the said Act
The execution of documents containing the alleged arbitration clause was not disputed in this case
The clause was as follows All disputes differences or claims arising out of this agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be nominated by the owners
In the event of death refusal neglect inability or incapability of the person so appointed to act as arbitrator the owners may appoint a new arbitrator
The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all the parties concerned
 Various issues were framed by the trial court
The appellate court confirmed the said decision
There was a second appeal to the High Court
The High Court framed the question of law in the impugned judgment as follows Whether the courts below were right in holding that section 32 of the barred the suit and in dismissing the same on that ground It was contended before the High Court by the appellant that the so called hire purchase agreements  were nothing else than agreements entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant No 1 with respect to transaction of loan
It was the case of the appellant that the alleged arbitration agreement was not entered into as such in the sense though certain documents were executed these were not properly understood as hire purchase agreements
Therefore the main ques 50 tion was whether the existence of the agreement as hire purchase agreement was denied by the appellant and put in issue before the court
Specific case of the appellant was that this was a transaction of loan and there was in fact no agreement of arbitration
It appears from the perusal of the plaint as well as the issues framed that the very existence of the agreement described as hire purchase agreements was put in issue
The execution of the documents was not denied but it was alleged that these were manipulated documents in other words fraudulent documents and it was further the case of the appellant that there were in fact no agreements which contained the arbitration agreement
The case of the appellant was that there was no document containing any valid arbitration agreement in existence
This fact was raised in the plaint and issue to that effect was raised in other words that the appellant plaintiff in this case was contended that the agreement described as hire purchase agreements were untrue and void procured fraudulently
The issues framed by the learned trial judge also included this specific point
Section 32 of the Act does not contemplate the case suits challenging the validity of a contract because it contains an arbitration clause
If the intention of the legislature were that all documents containing an arbitration clause should come within the purview of sections 32 and 33 the legislature would have said so in appropriate words
These sections have a very limited application namely where the existence of validity of an arbitration agreement and not the contract containing the arbitration agreement is challenged
Every person it has to be borne in mind has a right to bring a suit which was of a civil nature and the court had jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure
That right has not been taken away by section 32 of the Act
Such a right can only be taken away by express terms or by necessary implication
Section 32 of the Act does not have that effect
We have perused the plaint in this case one of the issues namely issue No 4 was Whether the defendant No 1 obtained disputed hire purchase agreements from the plaintiffs in pursuance of its money lending business The existence of the disputed hire purchase agreements were put in issue
It was suggested that these were obtained by dubious method or that these were fraudulently procured
It is true that the execution of an alleged document was not in issue but the existence of that document as an arbitration agreement was in issue
Sections 32 and 33 of the Act on the true construction do not purport to deal with suits for declaration that there was never any contract or that contract is void
This principle is well settled
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Harries CJ and Banerjee J in State of Bombay vs Adamjee Hajee Dawood and Co AIR 1951 Calcutta 147 held that 51 section 32 of the Act does not contemplate the case of a suit challenging the validity of a contract merely because it contains an arbitration clause
This is the correct position in law
If that is the law then in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial court the learned appellate court and the High Court were in error in this case in dismissing the suit and the appeals respectively
The appeal is therefore allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court and the courts below are set aside
In the facts and circumstances of the case costs of the parties will be costs in the suit
The suit will now proceed as expeditiously as possible
SL Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellantplaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the eight agreementscontracts executed between the appellants and the defendantrespondent No 1 were not hire purchase agreements  but were agreements relating to the transaction of loan
The suit was dismissed
The appellate Court confirmed the decision of the Trial Court
There was a second appeal to the High Court whereafter the appellants moved this Court by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court
Allowing the Appeal the Court HELD The suit had been dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 32 of the 
Section 32 of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding any law for the time being in force no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be enforced set aside amended modified or in any way affected otherwise than as provided in the Act
49B C Specific case of the appellants was that it was a transaction of loan and there was in fact no agreement of arbitration
It appeared from the plaint as well as the issues framed that the very existence of the agreement described as hire purchase agreement was put in issue
The execution of the documents was not denied but it was alleged that these were manipulated documents and that there were in fact no agreements which contained the arbitration agreement
50A C Section 32 of the Act does not contemplate the case of suits challenging the validity of a contract because it contains an arbitration 48 clause
The section has a very limited application namely where the existence of the validity of an arbitration agreement and not the contract containing the arbitration agreement is challenged
50D E Every person has a right to bring a suit which is of a Civil nature and the Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of Civil nature under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure
That right has not been taken away by section 32 of the Act
One of the issues framed namely
issue No 4 was whether the defendant No 1 obtained disputed hire purchase agreements from the plaintiffs in pursuance of its money lending business The existence of the disputed hire purchase agreements was put in issue
It is true that the execution of an alleged document was not in issue but the existence of that document as an arbitration agreement was in issue
Section 32 of the Act does not purport to deal with suits for declaration that there was never any contract or that the contract is void
This principle is well settled
In State of Bombay vs Adamjee Hajee Dawood and Co AIR 1951 Calcutta 147 the Calcutta High Court held that section 32 of the Act does not contemplate the case of a suit challenging the validity of a contract merely because it contains an arbitration clause
This is the correct position in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court the appellate Court and the High Court in this case were in error
Their judgments and orders were set aside
50E H 51A C State of Bombay vs Adamjee Hajee Dawood  Co AIR  referred to