# Printers ( ft{J•sort') Privatt' Ltd v. Pothan Jostjih - **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 713 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1959-09-21 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. vVANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/printers-ft-j-sort-privatt-ltd-v-pothan-jostjih-1891 - **Pages:** 15 ## Headnote · ' Arbitration Agreement:-Power of court to st~y legal proceedings -Order by trial court refusing stay of proceedings affirmed in appeal -Supreme Court, if and when can interfere with concurrent exercise of discretion by the courts below-Arbitration Act, 1940 (x of 1940), s. 34-Constitution of India, Art. 136. The respondent was the Editor of the Deccan Herald, owned and published by the appellant, and the two contracts executed by the parties contained an arbitration clause that if in the interpretation or applicatio.n of the contract any difference arose between the parties the same shall _ be referred to arbitration :ind the award shall be binding between the parties and also provided for, apart from his monthly salary, the payment of 10% of the profits to the respondent. Upon the termination of his services by the appellant, the respondent brought a suit for ·accounts and payment of the profits ·found. due to him. The appellant by an 1960 April 27. 1960 Printers ( ft{J•sort') Privatt' Ltd. v. Pothan Jostjih 714 SUPREJVlE COURT REPORTS l l 9GOJ application pleaded that the suit ought to be stayed under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the dispute referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement between the parties. The trial Judge refused to exercise his discretion in favour of the appellant and refused to stay the suit. On appeal the High Court confirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellant came up to this Court special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution: Held, that the power conferred on the court by s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.., is discretionary and even though the conditions specified therein were fulfilled no party could claim thereunder a stay of legal proceedings instituted in a court as a matter of" right. But the discretion vested in the court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised as such in the facts and circumstances of each case. No inflexible rules can, therefore, be laid down for its exercise and the court has to act according to common sense and iusticc. Gard11'1· v. Jay, (1885) 29 Ch. D. SO, referred to. Where the discretion under the section has been properly and judiciously exercised by the trial court the appeallate court would not be justified in interferin? with sU:ch exercise_ of discretion n1crely on the ground that it would have taken a contrary decision if it had considered the matter at the trial stage.- But if it appears to the appellate court that the trial court has exercised its discretion unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant facts or has approached the matter unjudiciou.sly, it would be its duty to intetfere. Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton, (1942) A.C. 130, referred to. The words "interpretation and application of the contract'', frequently used in arbitration clauses_, as they have been in the contracts in question cover not only disputes relating to the construction of the relevant terms of the contract but also their effect. and unless the context compels a contrary construction, a dispute relating to the working of the contract falls within such a clause. But the Suoreme Court would not lightly interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution with the concurrent exercise of discretion of the courts below under s. 34 of the Act. Before it can justly do so, the appellant must satisfy the Court, on the relevant facts referred to bv the courts below, that thev exercised their discretion in a manifestly unreasonablt.: or p~rversc way which was likelv to defeat the ends of justice. CIVIL APPELLATE JtrRJSDICTJON: Civil Appeal No. I 07 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the _iudgment and order dat~d September 21, 1959, .of the Mysore High Court, Bangalore, in Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 1959. Pnrshottam Trikamdas, S: N.-,Andley, ].· Tl. Dadarhonji, Rames/wrar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. - .... • ,. - - . 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 715 K. R. Karanth and Naunit Lal, for the respon- ,. ' . i dent. 1960. April 27. 'The Jud ## Text 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 713 All these cases turned on different facts, and it is not necessary to decide which of them in the special 1960 Pingle Industries nrcumstances were correctly decided. This enquiry Ltd., Secunderabad will hardly help in the solution of the case in hand. We are, however, satisfied that in this case the asse~ see acquired by his long-term lease a right to win ~tones, and the leases conveyed to him a part of land. v. rommissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad The stones in situ were not his stock-in-trade 111 a Hidayatullah J. business sense . but a capital asset from which after extraction he converted the stones into his stock-intrade. The payment, though periodic in fact, wa~ neither rent nor royalty but a lump payment in instalments for acquiring a capital asset of enduring benefit to his trade. In this view of the matter, the High 1 Court was right in treating the outgoings as on capital account. In the result, the appeal fails, and will be dismissed with costs. BY CQUR'I': judgment of the costs. In accordance with the majority Court, the appeal is dismissed with Appeal dismissed. THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) PRIVATE LTD. / v. POTHAN JOSEPH. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. vVANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) · ' Arbitration Agreement:-Power of court to st~y legal proceedings -Order by trial court refusing stay of proceedings affirmed in appeal -Supreme Court, if and when can interfere with concurrent exercise of discretion by the courts below-Arbitration Act, 1940 (x of 1940), s. 34-Constitution of India, Art. 136. The respondent was the Editor of the Deccan Herald, owned and published by the appellant, and the two contracts executed by the parties contained an arbitration clause that if in the interpretation or applicatio.n of the contract any difference arose between the parties the same shall _ be referred to arbitration :ind the award shall be binding between the parties and also provided for, apart from his monthly salary, the payment of 10% of the profits to the respondent. Upon the termination of his services by the appellant, the respondent brought a suit for ·accounts and payment of the profits ·found. due to him. The appellant by an 1960 April 27. 1960 Printers ( ft{J•sort') Privatt' Ltd. v. Pothan Jostjih 714 SUPREJVlE COURT REPORTS l l 9GOJ application pleaded that the suit ought to be stayed under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the dispute referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement between the parties. The trial Judge refused to exercise his discretion in favour of the appellant and refused to stay the suit. On appeal the High Court confirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellant came up to this Court special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution: Held, that the power conferred on the court by s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.., is discretionary and even though the conditions specified therein were fulfilled no party could claim thereunder a stay of legal proceedings instituted in a court as a matter of" right. But the discretion vested in the court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised as such in the facts and circumstances of each case. No inflexible rules can, therefore, be laid down for its exercise and the court has to act according to common sense and iusticc. Gard11'1· v. Jay, (1885) 29 Ch. D. SO, referred to. Where the discretion under the section has been properly and judiciously exercised by the trial court the appeallate court would not be justified in interferin? with sU:ch exercise_ of discretion n1crely on the ground that it would have taken a contrary decision if it had considered the matter at the trial stage.- But if it appears to the appellate court that the trial court has exercised its discretion unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant facts or has approached the matter unjudiciou.sly, it would be its duty to intetfere. Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton, (1942) A.C. 130, referred to. The words "interpretation and application of the contract'', frequently used in arbitration clauses_, as they have been in the contracts in question cover not only disputes relating to the construction of the relevant terms of the contract but also their effect. and unless the context compels a contrary construction, a dispute relating to the working of the contract falls within such a clause. But the Suoreme Court would not lightly interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution with the concurrent exercise of discretion of the courts below under s. 34 of the Act. Before it can justly do so, the appellant must satisfy the Court, on the relevant facts referred to bv the courts below, that thev exercised their discretion in a manifestly unreasonablt.: or p~rversc way which was likelv to defeat the ends of justice. CIVIL APPELLATE JtrRJSDICTJON: Civil Appeal No. I 07 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the _iudgment and order dat~d September 21, 1959, .of the Mysore High Court, Bangalore, in Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 1959. Pnrshottam Trikamdas, S: N.-,Andley, ].· Tl. Dadarhonji, Rames/wrar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. - .... • ,. - - . 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 715 K. R. Karanth and Naunit Lal, for the respon- ,. ' . i dent. 1960. April 27. 'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The respondent, Pothan Joseph, who was working a·s the Editor of the Deccan Herald owned and published by the appellant. The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., in Bangalore has Jiled a suit against the appellant op two contr:icts executed between the parties on April 1, 1948, and February 20, 195;1, respectively, ..and has claimed acc.ounts of the working of the Deccan Herald newspaper from April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1958, as well as payment of the amount that mav be found due to him from the appellant under the 'provisions of c~s. 2(d) and l(d) of the said contracts. The services of the respondent were termina_ted by the appellant by its letter dated September 28, 1957, in which the respondent was told that the termination would ta.ke. effect from March 31, 19.58. However, by a subsequent letter writt.en by the appellant to the respondent on March 17, 19.58, the respondent was told that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and he was asked to hand over charge to his success6r, Mr. T. S. Ramachandra Rao. Thereafter on July 14,' 1958, the respondent filed the present stiit against the appellant. The appellant contended that the two contracts on which the r~spondent's claim was based were subject to an arbitration agreement, and so it was not open to the respondent to file the_ present suit .. against the appellant. The appellant, therefore, requested the Court under s. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, i 940, (hereinafter called the Act), to stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent and refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties. The learned trial judge who heard the appellant's application, however, exercised his discretion against it and refused to stay the proceedings. in the respondent's suit. Thereupon the appellant preferred an appeal in the Mysore High Court but his appeal failed and the High Court confirmed the orde~ passed "by •hp trial court though for different reasons. The -High ' l 1960 Printas (A1jlsore)' Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph Gajendragadkar J. ; 1960 Printe.rs (Mjsore) Private Lid. v. Polhan :Joseph Gajendragadkar J. 716 SlJPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] Court, however, thought that the learned trial judge, in dealing with the appellant's application "had gone much further than he should have done, and hence it was desirable that the case should be tried by some other judge". The respondent did not object, arid so the High Court directed that the suit may be transferred to the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant then applied to .the High Court for a certificate. His application was, however, rejected on the ground that the decision nnder appeal could not be considered as a judgment, decree or final order under Art. 133(1) of the, Constitution; on that view it was thought unnecessary to decide whether on the merits the case was fit to be taken in appeal to this Co1irt. Then the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this Court. That is how this appeal has come before us; and the substantial point which arises for our decision is whether the courts pelow were in error in refusing to stay the suit filed by the respondent against the appellant in vie.w of the arbitration agreement between them. Before we deal with the merits of the contentions r'1ised by the parties in this appeal it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts leading to the present litigation. The appellant is a printing company and it owns and publishes the Deccan Herald in English and Prajavani in Kannada at Bangalore. By a contract dated April 1, 1948, the appellant engaged the respondent as Editor of the Deccan Herald for a peri?d of five years· on terms and conditions specified in the said contract. As provided by cl. (.~) of the said contract the period of the respondent's employment was extended by another five years by a subsequent contract entered into between the parties on February 20, 1953. As we have already mentioned the services of the respondent came to be terminated z,bruptly on March 17, I 9.~8. Jt appears that by his letter dated October 16, 19.57, the respondent made certain claims against the appellant under the provisions of the \Vorking Journalists Act. Besides, he demanded 1.110th of the profits made by the Deccan Herald from 1948 up to the elate of the termination of his . service under the two respective contracts. This claim was - - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 denied by the appellant. Correspondence then ensued between the parties but since no common ground was disco\'iered between them the respondent filed the present suit. His case is that the two contracts entitled him to claim 1 /10th of the profits made by the Deccan Herald during the period of his employment, and so he claims an account of the said profits and' his due share in them. The learned trial judge found that the respective contentions raised by the parties before him showed that there was no dispute as such between them which could attract the arbitration agreement. He also held that an attempt was made by the parties to settle their differences amicably through the. mediation of Mr. Behrarh Doctor but the said attempt failed because the appellant was not serious about it and was just trying "to protract, defeat and delay the plaintiff's moves". According to the learned trial judge a plea of limitation would fall to be considered in ·the present suit and it was desirable that the said plea should · be tried by a competent court .rather than by arbitrators. He was, however, not impressed by the respondent's contention_ that his character had been impeached by the appellant and so he should be allowed to vindicate his character in a trial before a court rather than before the arbitrators. In dismissing th~ appellant's claim for stay of the suit the learned judge observed that if the accounts of the Deccan Herald had not been separately maintained it would be competent for a qualified accountant to allocate expenses and capital expenses among the different activities of the appellant and then very little would be left for arbitrators · to decide. He had no doubt that the contract by which the respondent was entitled to claim 1/10th 'share in the profits of the De·ccan Herald necessarily postulated that· the accounts of the Deccan Herald would be separately maintained. On these considerations the trial judge refused to stay the suit . . W'hen the matter went in appeal the High Court held that .the dispute between the parties did not fall ·within the arbitration· agreement. The High Court ci l•sore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph Gajendragadkar J. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll 9GO] whether stay should be granted or not. Jf there has been a long delay in making an application for stay and the said delay may reasonably be attributed to the fact that the parties may have abandoned the arbitration agreement the court may consider the delay as a relevant fact in deciding whether stay should be granted or not. Similarly, if complicated questions of law or constitutional issues arise in the decision of the dispute and the court is satisfied that it would be inexpedient to leave the decision of such complex issues to the arbitrator, it may, in ·a proper case, refuse to grant stay on that ground; indeed, in such cases the arbitrator can and may state a special case for the opinion of the court under s. J 3(b) of the Act. Thus, the question as to whether legal proceedings should be stayed under s. 34 .must always be decider! by the ·court in a judicial manner having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. Where the discretion vested in the court under s. 34 has been exercised by the trial court the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the exercise of the said discretion. In dealing with the matter raised before it at the appellate stage the appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a ditferent view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. As is often said, it is ordinarily not open to the appellate court to substitute its own exercise of discretion for that of the trial judge; but if it appears to the appellate court that in exercising its discretion the trial court has acted unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant facts and has adopted an unjudicial approach then it would certainly be open . to the appellate court-and in niany cases it may be its duty-to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion. In cases falling under this class the exercise of discretion by the trial ' - ,.. - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 721 conn is 111 law wrongful and improper and that would certainly justify and call for interference from the appellate court. These principles are well established: but, as has been observed by Viscount Simon, L. C., in Chareles Osenton & Co. v. Johnston (1) "the law as to the. reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles m an individual case". In the present case there is one more fact which has to be borne in mind in dealing with the merits of the controversy before us. The appellant has come to this Court by special leave under Art. 136; in other words the appellant is not entitled to challenge the correctness of the decision of the High Court as a matter of ri1?;ht. It is only in the discretion of this Court that it can be permitted to dispute the correc.- ness or the propriety of the decision of the High Court,' and so in deciding whether or not this Court should interfere with the order under appeal it would be relevant for us to take into aocount the fact that the remedy sought for by the appellant is by an appeal which is a discretionary matter so far as this Court is concerned. It is in the light of these principles that we must consider whether or. not the appellant's complaint agaimt the High Court's order can be upheld. The first point which calls for a decision relates to the construction of the contracts between the parties. As we have already stated two O?ntracts were executed between them but their terms are substantially the sarne and so we may deal with the subsequent; contract which. was executed on February 20, 1953 (P. 2). Under this contrac.t the respondent was engaged as the Editor of the Deccan Herald and his salary was fixed at Rs. l ,.IJOO per rnensern under paragraph 1 (a). Paragraph l(b) and (c) deal with the other amenities to which the respondent was entitled: Clause (d) of paragraph l provides that when the newspaper shows a profit in the annual accounts the Editor shall be entitled to I/10th share of it; it is pn this clause that the respondent's claim in the present proceedings is (I) [1942] A.C. 130, 138. 1960 Printers ( .tlfysore) Private Ltd., v. Potluiii Joseph Gajmdragadkar J. ( 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] 1960 based. The terms on which the respondent had to re- -- main in the service of the appellant are specifiedinparaPri•ters (Mysore) h 2( ) d (b) p h 3 "d f" h 1 Private Ltd grap a an . aragrap prov1 es or t e renewa v. of the contract for a further period of five years if it is Po than Joseph found that such renewal is for the mutual advantage of . - the parties. This paragraph also provides that during Ga;endragadkar f. the continuance of his employment the respondent shall not directly or indirectly be interested in any other newspaper business than that of the appellant or any other journalistic activities in competition with that of the appellant. It also stipulates that if the contract is determined the respondent shall not for a period of three years thereafter be directly or indirectly interested in any newspaper business of the S'lme kind as is carried on by the appellant within the Mysore State. It would thus be seen that this paragraph shows the liability imposed on the respondent as a consideration for the benefit conferred on him by paragraph 1 in general and cl. (d) of the said paragraph in particular. Paragraph 4 contains an arbitration agreement. It provides that if in the interpretation or application of the contract any difference of opinion arises between the parties the same shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator can be named by both the parties but if they failed to choose the same person each side will choose an arbitrator and the two will elect another person to complete the panel. Their award shall be final and binding on both the parties. The High Court has held that the present snit is outside the arbitration agreement because neither party disputes the applicability of the terms of the contract in the decision of the dispute. The High Court thought that in the context the words ' application of the contract' meant a dispute as to the applicability of the contract, and since the applicability of the contract was not in question and no dispute as to the interpretation of the contract arose, the High Court held that paragraph 4 was inapplicable to the present suit. Mr. Purshottam, for the appellant, contends that the construction placed by the High Court on the word "application" is erroneous. According to him, any difference of opinion in regard to the application of the contract must in the context mea.n ' •... ) 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 723 the working out of the Gontract or giving effect to its terms. In our opinion, this contention is well founded. The words 'interpretation or application of the contract' are frequently used in arbitration agreements and they generally cover disputes between the parties in regard to the construction of .the relevant terms of the contract as well as their effect, and unless the context. compels a contrary construction, a dispute in regard to the working of the contract would generally fall within the clause in question. It is not easy to appreciate what kind of dispute according to the High ·Court would have attracted paragraph 4 when it refers to a difference of opinion in the application of the contract. Since both the parties have signed the c'cmtract the question about its applicability in that forn~ esor•) Privat• Ltd. v. Pothat1 Joseph Gajmdragadkar 1960 Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. V. Potka11 ,7os~pk Gajendragadknr J. 724 SUPREl\lE COURT REPORTS [ 1960] relevant facts to which both -~the courts have referred, and on which both of them have relied though m different ways. ·what then are the broad features of the case on which the trial judge and the High Court have respect· ively relied? It is clear that the present dispute is not the resuJt of an ordinary commercial transaction containing an arbitration clause. The contract in question is between a journalist and his employer by which the remuneration of the journalist has been fixed in a somewhat unusual manner by giving him a specified percentage in the profit which the Deccan Herald would make from year to year. According to the respondent he was surprised when the General Manager of the paper informed him that 75% of the overall expenditure incurred in the several activities of the appellant: was being charged to the Deccan Herald, and that the capital liabilities were charged in the same proportion; he thought that this system of accounting adopted by the appellant was repugnant: to the material provisions in his contract. Indeed bis case is that after he came to know about this system he protested to the Director, Mr. Venkataswamy, who has been taking active part in the affairs of the appellant, and Mr. Venkataswamy assured him that as from the beginning of 19ilii the accounts were being separately maintained. It would appear that the information received by the respondent from the General Mana12:er disillusioned him and that appears to be the beginning of the present dispute, according to the respondent's letter of May 24. 19.55, (D. 1 ). On February J 8, I 956, the respondent invoked the arbitration agreement and told Mr. Venkataswamy that Mr. Behram Doctor had agreed to work as arbitrator and give his award ID. 2). \fr. Venkataswamy who was addressed by the respondent as the l\'fana~!ing Director told him by his reply of March ~. I Y?>Ci, that he was not t:he Manap;ing Director and added that in his view it was not open to the respondent to invoke cl. 4 of the contract because he was aware that no monies were payable to the respondent under cl. 1 (d). It would thus be seen that \fr. \'enkataswamy's immediate response to the respondent's request for arbitration was that the rcspon- . - - ) '" 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 725 d~nt 'could not· invoke, the arbitration clause (D. 3). It 1960 is tnie that o'n April 23, . 1956, ·Mr. Venkataswamy a_ttempted to explain this statement. by saying . that all Pr~~~~~AJ!tJ~re) that he intendJd to. s:uggest was that· no occasion· for v. irwoking ·the arbitratio1J. agreement had arisen. That, Pothan Joseph ltq1~e\:er, .appears to , )Je an unsatisfactory explanation ... (J?, 10), Even so, Mr. Venkataswamy agreed to meet Gajendragadkar J; Mr. Bel)ram Doctor and so. on March 9, 1956, the r~spondent gave to Jvt;r. Venkataswamy the address of J\if r. Behram. Doctor and asked him to see him (D. S). fie informed Mr. Bepram Doctor accor,dingly (D. 6). Ii appears that subsequently Mr. Behtam Doctor n1et both the respondent and Mr, Venkataswamy on M,ay _9. J 956. ~be. proceeding.s of ,this meeting which have been kept by Mr. Behram Doc.tor and copies of which have been supplied by him to both the parties indicate that Mr. . Behram Doctor attempted to mediate between the parties and presumably t~e parties were ag~eeable to secure the mediation of Mr.. Behram D~Ktor to resolve dispute. v\Te ought to add . that the copy of. the said proceedings produced by the appellant contains a statement that Mr. Venk.ataswamy at the outset told Mr. Behram Doctor that he had· come 'oh an unofficial visit 'and was speaking without the consent. of the other directors. This' statement is,' however, not tq. be found in the copy' supplied by Mr. Behram Doctor to the. resporn:lent. . Prim:i facie it is m~t easy to 1,mders~and why Mr. Behram Doctor should have omitted this material statement in the copy SUp];lied by him to the respondent. Th~t, however, is·a matter which we do not propose)o pl.Ii-sue io the ptesent appeal. It is thus clear that though Mr. Behram Dottor was not appointed an arbitrator and no reference in ' writing was made to him an attempt. was mad~ by' th~ 'parties to settle the dispute with the assi&tance of Mr. Behrarri Doctor, and that attempt fail~d.' Haying rega'rd 'to the facts which have come on the recqrd it may not be unreasonable to infer tliat the· appellaJ?t was not too kt;en, tq pinsue the rrfa ttcr on the l~ries · originally' adopted ·by ' both the patties before Mr.· Behram Doctor.· · · It' also app~ars th;;tt for some, years th~ accou~ts .of , flie'· D'eccan Herald 1:had not been separately kept as' 30'-6 '.sCi-/ND/8.2·.: 1960 ; Printers ( k(}isore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph Gajendragadkar J. .. 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] they should have been according to the respondent"s case. The respondent alleges that they have not been kept separately throughout the ten years; but that is a matter which is yet to be investigated. If the accounts are not separately kept the question of allocating expenditure would inevitably arise and that can be decided after adopting some ad hoc. principle in that behalf. A plea of limitation has also been indicated by the appellant and it has ben suggested that the first contract having merged in the second it is only under the latter contract that the ffspondent may have a cause of action. Thus the eflect of the two contracts considered together may have to be adjudged in dealing with the question of limitation. lt has also been suggested that the respondent , knew how the accounts were kept from year to year and in substance he may be deemed to have agreed with the method adopted in keeping the accounts. If this point is raised by the appellant it may involve the decision of the question about the effect of the respondent's conduct on his present claim. The appellant has also suggested that the respondent has adopted an attitude of blackmailing the appellant and the respondent treats that as an aspersion on his charac- . ter. The relations between the parties have been very much embittered and the respondent apprehends that the appellant, being a powerful company, may delay and seek to defeat the respondent's claim by protracting the proceedings before the arbitrators. It now looks impossible that the parties would agree to appoint one arbitrator, and so if the matter goes before the domestic tribunal the two arbitratots appointed hy the two parties respectiv~ly may have to nominate a third one to complete the constitution of the domestic tribunal, and that it is ,aid may easily lead to a deadlock. In the trial court attempts were made to sett.le this unfortunate dispute but they failed and the respondent's grievance is that the appellant adopted an unhelpful and non-co-operative attitude. It appea1s fairly clear that when the parties entered into the present contract and agreed that differences between them in regard to the interpretation and application of the contract should be referred to . - --· . ) '· 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 727 arbitration they did not anticipate the complications which have subsequently arisen. That is why an arbitration agreement may have been introduced in the contract in question. All these facts have been considered by both the courts, and though it is true that in their approach and final decisions in respect of these facts the two courts have differed in material particula1:s, they have in the result agreed with the conclusion that the discretion vested in them should be exercised in not granting stay as claimed by the appellant. Under these circumstances we do not think we would be justified in substituting our discretion for that of the courts below. It may be that if we were trying the appellant's application under s. 34 we might have come to a different conclusion; and also that we may have hesitated to confirm the order of the tnal court if we had been dealing with the matter as a court of first appeal; but the matter has now' come to us under Art. 136, and so we can justly interfere with the concurrent exercise of the discretion by the .courts below only if we feel that the said exercise of discretion is patently and manifestly unreasonable, capricious or perverse and that it may defeat the ends of justice. Having regard to all the circumstances and facts of this case we are not disposed to hold that a case for our interference has been made out by the appellant. That is why we dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD· v. K:ARAMCHAND PREMCHAND LTD., AHMEDABAD. (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR and M. HIDAYADULLAH, JJ.) Income-tax-Set-off-Business loss in Indian State-Profits in British India-Applicability of the Act to business in Indian StateBusiness Profits Tax Act, 1947 (21 of 1947), ss. 2(3), 4, 5. The assessee held the managing agency of a limited company in what was then called "British India" and had also a pharma1960 Printers (Mysore) Privale Ltd. v .. Pothan Joseph Gajendragailkar J. 1960 April 28.