2009 JTR(SC) 1655
2009 83 AIC 127 ; 2010 3 AIR(Jhar)(R) 14 ; 2010 AIR(SCW) 232 ; 2009 77 AllLR 638 ; 2009 4 ArbLR 225 ; 2010 2 AWC 1578 ; 2009 4 CCC(SC) 308 ; 2009 4 CivCC 598 ; 2010 1 CivLJ 491 ; 2010 2 ICC 399 ; 2010 1 JLJR(SC) 192 ; 2009 13 JT 413 ; 2010 2 MLJ 514 ; 2010 1 RCR(Civ) 932 ; 2010 6 RCR(Civ) 17 ; 2009 13 Scale 374 ; 2010 1 SCC 83 ; 2010 1 SCC(Civ) 23 ; 2009 15 SCR 283 ; 2009 2 WLC 743 ; 2009 7 Supreme 106
2009(7) Supreme 106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Agarwal Steel — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5994 of 2004
Decided on : 20-10-2009
IMPORTANT POINT
When a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.
Act Referred :ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.34
(A) Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 34 provides the statutory framework for challenging an arbitral award on specified grounds. In the present matter, the objection filed under this section before the Addl. District Judge formed the critical juncture where the validity of an admission signed by a party was contested, requiring the court to interpret the consequences of a signed document in commercial arbitration. The High Courts examination of the award and its exercise under the Act ultimately led to the impugned judgment, which this Supreme Court bench reviewed and set aside.
(B) A signature on a document creates a rebuttable presumption that the signatory has read and understood its contents, particularly where parties are businessmen acting with due care. Absent force or fraud, an admission signed by a party is treated as conclusive, and the court cannot accept a plea of mistake. The principle of finality in arbitration awards is preserved unless a strong case is made under Section 34.
Facts of the case:
The appellant and the respondent had an agreement appointing the appellant as a principal dealer for cement sales, with a further consignment agency agreement executed in 1997. Disputes arising under this agreement were referred to arbitration, resulting in an award against the appellant. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34, and the High Court, while modifying the amount, accepted the respondents plea that a key document was signed under a mistake. This appeal followed.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the document bore the respondents signature and, in the absence of force or fraud, it could not be treated as signed under a mistake. The High Courts finding to the contrary was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for disposal in accordance with law, leaving other questions open.
Issues:
Whether a signed document in an arbitration proceeding is binding on the signatory in the absence of force or fraud.
Whether the plea of mistake can be accepted to negate the admission contained in a document signed by the party.
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its powers under Section 34 to reduce the arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi:
In commercial transactions, a signed document creates a strong presumption of knowledge and acceptance. Without allegations or proof of force or fraud, a party cannot escape the consequences of its signature, and an arbitral award based on such admission cannot be disturbed under Section 34.
Result:
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
(A) Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 34 provides the statutory framework for challenging an arbitral award on specified grounds. In the present matter, the objection filed under this section before the Addl. District Judge formed the critical juncture where the validity of an admission signed by a party was contested, requiring the court to interpret the consequences of a signed document in commercial arbitration. The High Courts examination of the award and its exercise under the Act ultimately led to the impugned judgment, which this Supreme Court bench reviewed and set aside.
(B) A signature on a document creates a rebuttable presumption that the signatory has read and understood its contents, particularly where parties are businessmen acting with due care. Absent force or fraud, an admission signed by a party is treated as conclusive, and the court cannot accept a plea of mistake. The principle of finality in arbitration awards is preserved unless a strong case is made under Section 34.
Facts of the case:
The appellant and the respondent had an agreement appointing the appellant as a principal dealer for cement sales, with a further consignment agency agreement executed in 1997. Disputes arising under this agreement were referred to arbitration, resulting in an award against the appellant. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34, and the High Court, while modifying the amount, accepted the respondents plea that a key document was signed under a mistake. This appeal followed.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the document bore the respondents signature and, in the absence of force or fraud, it could not be treated as signed under a mistake. The High Courts finding to the contrary was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for disposal in accordance with law, leaving other questions open.
Issues:
Whether a signed document in an arbitration proceeding is binding on the signatory in the absence of force or fraud.
Whether the plea of mistake can be accepted to negate the admission contained in a document signed by the party.
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its powers under Section 34 to reduce the arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi:
In commercial transactions, a signed document creates a strong presumption of knowledge and acceptance. Without allegations or proof of force or fraud, a party cannot escape the consequences of its signature, and an arbitral award based on such admission cannot be disturbed under Section 34.
Result:
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ankur Saighl, Gaurav Singh, Ms. Bina Gupta, Chandra Shekhar, Divesh Jain, Saurabh Upadhyay and Dr. S.K. Verma, Advocates, with him, for the Appearing Parties.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14th May, of the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant herein entered into an agreement with the respondent and appointed the appellant as a principal dealer for sale of its cement ‘Vikram Premium Brand’. On 21.3.1997, the respondent became the consignment agent of the appellant company and in this behalf an agreement dated 1.5.1997 was signed between the parties. Disputes and differences arose between the parties under the said agreement dated 1.5.1997 and the same were referred to an arbitrator. A copy of the arbitration award dated 6.8.2000 is annexed as Annexure-P/10 to this appeal. In the award the arbitrator has rejected the plea of the claimant-respondent that the signature on Ex.D-8 dated 21.10.1997 were only in lieu of a receipt. The case of the appellant was that the document Ex.D-8 was a joint statement of account. The arbitrator held that the signatures on Ex. D-8, joint statement of account, were made by the parties. However, he held that the signature on behalf of the claimant-respondent was made under a mistake and hence the same was not binding. Accordingly, the arbitrator re-examined each head of account and ultimately held the appellant liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 49.90 lakhs alongwith interest. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) were filed by the respondent before the IXth Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur. By his order dated 25.6.2001, the learned Addl. District Judge held that the appellant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 62,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%. The said order of the learned Addl. District Judge was put in challenge before the High Court under Section 37 of the Act.
4. We are not going into the details of the impugned judgment except to note that in para 24 of the said judgment it has been stated that the arbitrator did not accept the claimant-respondent’s plea that the signatures on Ex.D-8 were only in lieu of receipt. However, the arbitrator addressed himself to the facet whether the admission was erroneous or mistaken or it was conclusive proof of the matter.
5. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence the presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation of force or fraud in this case. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex.D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake. We cannot agree with the view of the High Court on this question. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for expeditious disposal in accordance with law.
6. All questions of law and fact, except the one decided by us hereinabove shall remain open for the parties to be urged before the High Court. We make it clear that we are making our observation that there was no mistake in the document Ex. D-8, which the parties have signed.
7. Interim order of this Court dated 23.9.2004, as modified on 9.1.2006, shall continue to remain in operation till final disposal of the matter by the High Court.
8. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7477/2004 AND 1733/2005
9. In terms of our order in Civil Appeal No. 5994/2004, these appeals also stand disposed of.
***********