Civil Appeal No 14 of 1968
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 12 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in FAFO No 401 of 1963
RM Hazarnavis KL Hathi and Atiqur Rehman for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
By a contract dated March 8 1945 the appellant agreed to supply meat to the Government of India
The contract contained an arbitration clause for reference of disputes arising out of the contract to the officer named in the contract
The appellant claims that a sum of Rs 838994106 is due to him in respect of the supplies of meat made by him during the period between April 1 1945 and March 31 1946
He made representations to
the Government for payment and for arbitration of the disputes
On or about July 10 1958 the Government refused to
refer the matter to
arbitration
On July 11 1961 the appellant filed an application in the Court of the District Judge Jhansi under sections 8 and 20 of the for filing the arbitration agreement and for an order of reference of the disputes to an arbitrator appointed by the Court
The respondent contended that the application was barred by limitation
The District Judge allowed the application
He held that there was no period of limitation for making an application under sections 8 and 20
The defendant filed an appeal against the order
The High Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent in so far as it challenged the order under section 8 and allowed it in so far as it challenged the order under section 20
The High Court held that the application was governed by article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 and was barred by limitation as it was made more than three years after the disputes had arisen
The appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining a certificate from the High Court
The point in issue is whether an application under section 20 of the is governed by article 181 of the Indian L2Sup
CI 69 16 234 Limitation Act
Since the decision in Bai Manekbai vs Manekli Kavasji1 it is well settled that the operation of article 181 is limited to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure
In that case Westropp CJ after referring to the corresponding article 178 in the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877 observed An examination of all the other articles in the second schedule relating to applications that is to say of the Third division of that schedule shows that the applications therein contemplated are such as are made under the Code of Civil Procedure
Hence it is natural to conclude that the applications referred to in Article 178 are applications ejusdem generis ie applications under the Code of Civil Procedure
The preamble of the Act moreover purports to deal with certain applications  only and not with all applications
 This decision was followed in numerous cases and was approved in Hansraj Gupta vs Official Liquidator Dehra Dun Mussourie Electric Tramway Company2
Having regard to these decisions Das J said in Shah Mulchand  Co vs Jawahar Mills Ltd 3 This long catena of decisions may well be said to have as it were added the word under the Code  in the first column of that Article The Court held that the amendment of articles 15 8 and 178 and the insertion of the words under the  in place of the words under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 did not alter the settled meaning of article 181
To the same effect is the decision in Bombay Gas Ca vs Gopal Bhiva4 Following these decisions the Court held in Wazirchand Mahajan  Anr
vs Union of India5 that an application under section 20 of the not being an application under the Code of Civil Procedure was not governed by article 181
The High Court has come to the conclusion that an application under section 20 of the is governed by article 181 for the following reasons Article 181 should be construed as if the words under the Code were added in it
The repealed paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code and re enacted it in section 20 with minor modifications
That being so section 81 of the applied and the implied reference in article 181 to paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code should be construed as a reference to section 20 of the 
No different intention is to be found in the and there is nothing to indi 1 Bom
213 214
2 1933 LR 60 IA13 20
3  371
4  5  235 cate that an application under section 20 can be made at any time without any limitation
The argument that the implied reference in article 181 to paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code should be construed as a reference to section 20 of the and not raised and considered in Wazirchand Mahalan s case1
It is therefore our duty to examine this contention
Section 8 1 of the corresponds to the Interpretation Act 1889 52  53 vict
c 63 and runs as follows Where this Act or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals and re enacts with or without modification any provision of a former enactment then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall unless a different intention appears be construed as references to the provision so reenacted
 The section embodies the rule of construction that where the provision of an Act is repealed and re enacted with or without modification a reference to the repealed provision in any other enactment should be regarded as a reference to the provision re enacted in the new form unless it appears that the legislature had a different intention
The was passed with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to arbitration
Formerly the general law relating to arbitration was to be found in the Indian Arbitration Act 1899 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Paragraphs 1 to 16 of the second schedule to the Code applied to all arbitrations in suits
As to arbitrations otherwise than in suits the Indian Arbitration Act 1899 applied to cases where if the subject matter submitted to arbitration were the subject of a suit the suit could be instituted in a Presidency town in other cases the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied The repealed both the enactments
It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and save as provided in section 47 applies to all arbitrations
As to the provisions of the new Act under which applications can be made to Court sections 8 14 16 28 and 30 correspond to provisions which are found in both the repealed enactments sections 5 and 9 correspond to similar provisions in the Indian Arbitration Act 1899 and sections 15 and 20 correspond to similar provisions in the second schedule to the Code and some sections such as sec
11 are entirely new
In the circumstances a question may arise whether the provisions of the new Act can be regarded as reenactments of the repeated provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1899 or of the Code
But for the purpose of this case we shall assume that section 20 of the new Act is a re enactment with 1  236 modification of paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code
We shall also assume that article 181 of the Limitation Act as construed by the Courts should be regarded as containing a reference to the Code of Civil procedure including paragraph 17 of the second schedule thereof
Even after making those two assumptions it appears to us that the implied reference in article 181 to the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be construed as a reference to the 
Before their amendment by the Indian  article 158 of the Limitation Act applied to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an award and article 178 applied to applications
under the same Code for the filing in Court of an award
The amended articles 158 and 178
The amended article 158 applies to applications under the to set aside an award or to get an award remitted for consideration that is to say to application under sections 16 and 30 of the Act
The amended article 178 applies to applications under the for the filing in Court of an award that is to say to applications under section 14 of the Act
In amending articles 158 and 178 the legislature acted upon the view that the references to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the second schedule t9 the Limitation Act could not in the absence of the amendment be construed as references to
At the same time the legislature refrained from amending article 181 and providing that the article will apply to other applications under the 
It is manifest that the legislature intended that save as provided in articles 158 and 178 there would not be any limitation for other applications under the Act Take the case of an application under section 28 of the Act for enlargement of the time for making the award
A similar application under paragraph 8 of the second schedule to the Code was governed by article 181but a like application under section 12 of the Indian Arbitration Act1899 was not subject to any period of limitation
There is nothing to indicate that for the purpose of limitation section 20 of the new Act should be regarded as a re enactment of the corresponding provision of the
Code and not of the Indian Arbitration Act 1899
An application under section 8 of the new Act corresponding to paragraph 5 of the second schedule to the Code and section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1899 stand on the same footing
In the circumstances it is not possible to construe the implied reference in article 181 to the Code of Civil Procedure as a reference to the  or to hold that article 181 applies to applications under that Act
The rule of construction given in section 8 1 of the cannot be applied as it appears that the legislature had a different intention
It follows that an application under sections 8 and 20 of the is not 237 governed by article 181
The Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for such an application
It follows that the present application under sections 8 and 20 is not barred by limitation
In conclusion we must observe that the appellant s claim relates to supplies during the period between April 1 1945 and March 31 1946
There is a serious contention whether the claim is barred by limitation
It will be the duty of the arbitrator to consider this matter carefully and to decide whether or not the claim is so barred
In the result the appeal is allowed the order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the District
Judge Jhansi is restored
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in this Court
GC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant entered into a contract with the Government of India
The contract contained an arbitration clause
For certain supplies made under the contract the appellant made representations to the Government or payment and for arbitration of disputes
On or about July 10 1958 Government refused to refer the matter for arbitration
On July 11 1961 the appellant flied an application in the Court of the District Judge under sections 8 and 20 of the  for filing the arbitration agreement and for an order of reference of the disputes to an arbitrator appointed by the court
The respondent contended that the application was barred by Limitation
The District Judge allowed the application holding that there was no limitation for making an application under sections 8 and 20
The defendant s appeal was dismissed by the High Court as incompetent in so far as it challenged the order under section 8 but was allowed in so far as it challenged the order under section 20
The High Court held that an application under section 20 is governed by article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908
In coming to this conclusion the High Court took into account the settled judicial view that the
operation of article 181 is limited to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure
and reasoned as follows Article 181 should be construed as if the words under the Code  were added in it
The repealed paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code and re enacted it in section 70 with minor modifications
That being so section 81 of the applied and the implied reference in article 181 to paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code should be construed as a reference to section 20 of the 
Appeal against the High Court s judgment was filed with certificate
HELD The appeal must be allowed
By the the Legislature amended articles 158 and 178 of the Limitation Act and made them applicable to the relevant proceedings under the but no similar change was made in article 181
It is manifest that save as provided in articles 158 and 178 there would not be any limitation for other applications under the Act
Further there is nothing to indicate that for the purpose of limitation section 20 of the 1940 Act should be regarded as a re enactment of the corresponding provision of the Code and not of the Indian Arbitration Act 1899
236 D G In the circumstances it is not possible to construe the implied reference in article 181 to the Code of Civil Procedure as a reference to the or to hold that article 181 applies to applications under that Act
The rule of construction given in section 81of the cannot be applied as it appears that the legislature had a 233 different intention
It follows that an application under sections 8 and 20 of the is not governed by article 181
The Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for such an application
236 G H The present application under sections 8 and 20 was therefore not barred by limitation
237 A Bai Manekbai vs Manekji Kavasji Born
213 214 Hansraj Gupta vs Official Liquidator Dehra Dun Mussourie Electric Tramway Company 1933 LR 60 IA 13 20 Shah Mulchand  Co vs Jawahar Mills Ltd   371 Bombay Gas Co vs Gopal Bhiva  and Wazirchand Mahajan  Anr
vs Union of India   referred