A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Dr. K.B. Dutt v. University of Delhi (1959 SCR 1236) examined the legality of an arbitral award that reinstated a professor following his dismissal by Delhi University. The arbitrator found the dismissal ultra vires and mala fide, declaring that Dr. Dutt continued as professor despite his removal. The Court scrutinized whether such an award amounted to specific enforcement of a contract of personal service, which is barred under Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court determined that the award disclosed an error of law on its face by enforcing a personal service contract, thus rendering it void. It further distinguished between awards under Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922 and awards under industrial law, clarifying that the broader principles applicable to industrial disputes do not apply to private contractual disputes involving personal service under regular arbitration laws.

Keywords: Arbitration Award, Personal Service Contract, Ultra Vires Dismissal, Delhi University Act, Specific Relief Act, Error on Face of Award, Arbitral Jurisdiction, Reinstatement, Legal Invalidity, Supreme Court of India.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Dr. K.B. Dutt v. University of Delhi

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date
September 3, 1958

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justices Venkatarama Aiyar, Gajendragadkar, and A.K. Sarkar

vi) Author
Justice A.K. Sarkar

vii) Citation
[1959] SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1236

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922

• Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

• Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Arbitration Law, Administrative Law, Employment Law, Contract Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Dr. K.B. Dutt, a professor of Chemistry at the University of Delhi, faced several disputes with the University. These included denial of salary grade benefits and supersession for the post of Head of the Department. The conflict escalated when an internal inquiry allegedly orchestrated by the Vice-Chancellor concluded against him. Following this, the University dismissed him. Dr. Dutt challenged this dismissal under Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922, which permitted arbitration for disputes arising out of employment contracts between the University and its employees. Professor M.N. Saha acted as the sole arbitrator, who declared the dismissal ultra vires, mala fide, and ineffective. The University challenged the enforceability of the award, arguing that it contravened the principle against specific performance of personal service contracts as codified under Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The University of Delhi appointed Dr. K.B. Dutt as Professor of Chemistry on May 10, 1944. A government-sanctioned selection grade scheme, introduced in 1948, excluded Dr. Dutt. The University appointed Dr. Seshadri as Head of Chemistry in 1949, superseding Dr. Dutt, which led him to file a declaratory suit challenging the appointment. Amidst rising tensions, both sides agreed to arbitration by Sir S. Vardachariar and Bakshi Sir Tek Chand. Their report largely indicted Dr. Dutt.

Despite Dr. Dutt’s objections regarding the impartiality of this internal inquiry, the University dismissed him on April 26, 1951, following the report’s findings. He challenged the authority of the arbitrators under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, but the court upheld the inquiry’s validity, holding it not to be arbitration.

On April 28, 1953, invoking Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922, Dr. Dutt unilaterally initiated arbitration proceedings. He appointed Professor M.N. Saha as his arbitrator and, after the University refused to nominate an arbitrator, deemed Professor Saha the sole arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Professor Saha proceeded ex parte, ruling that Dr. Dutt’s dismissal was ultra vires and mala fide, thereby restoring him to his position. The Sub-Judge accepted the award, but the Punjab High Court reversed it, setting the stage for the Supreme Court appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the award enforcing reinstatement amounted to specific enforcement of personal service contract, contrary to Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

ii) Whether the award disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record, making it liable to be set aside.

iii) Whether Section 45 of the Delhi University Act authorized the arbitrator to adjudicate reinstatement claims.

iv) Whether the appointment of Professor Saha as sole arbitrator was valid under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

The appellant’s counsel, N.C. Chatterjee, A.N. Sinha, and P.K. Mukherjee, argued that the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction under Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922. They contended that the section permitted arbitration on “any dispute arising out of contract,” which included wrongful dismissal disputes. Hence, reinstatement orders were within arbitral competence.

They argued that the award did not enforce personal service but merely declared the dismissal void due to mala fides, relying upon High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall (1948 L.R. 75 I.A. 225) where a wrongful dismissal under statutory rules was held void ab initio.

The counsel further argued that the award did not disclose any error on its face because it contained no reasons or legal propositions. They referred to Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. (1923 L.R. 50 I.A. 324) where the Privy Council ruled that an award disclosing no reasoning cannot be faulted for legal errors not appearing on its face.

The appellant also invoked Ram Kissendas Dhanuka v. Satya Charan Law (1949 L.R. 77 I.A. 128) to argue that declaratory reliefs against improper terminations were permissible even where specific performance of personal service is otherwise barred.

Finally, they urged that Professor Saha’s appointment as sole arbitrator was valid under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, since the University refused to nominate its arbitrator within the stipulated period.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that

The Attorney General for India, M.C. Setalvad, along with A.B. Rohatgi and B.P. Maheshwari, argued that the award was void as it directly enforced a contract of personal service contrary to Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. They contended that no civil court or arbitrator could compel specific performance of personal service contracts. Therefore, any award reinstating Dr. Dutt was fundamentally flawed.

They further argued that the finding of ultra vires lacked any legal or factual basis. The appointment, performance, and dismissal of professors at Delhi University were purely contractual matters not governed by statutory obligations as seen in I.M. Lall’s case.

The respondent also highlighted that the appointment of Professor Saha as sole arbitrator was illegal because Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922 required a three-member tribunal, and unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator was unauthorized.

They finally submitted that the award disclosed a clear legal error on its face by granting declaratory relief beyond arbitral jurisdiction.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 45 of the Delhi University Act, 1922
Read the provision here

ii) Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877
Read the provision here

iii) Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940
Read the provision here

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court, per Justice Sarkar, held that the award disclosed an error apparent on its face as it enforced specific performance of a personal service contract. The arbitrator’s conclusion that Dr. Dutt continued as a professor despite dismissal amounted to specific enforcement prohibited under Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court distinguished High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall (1948 L.R. 75 I.A. 225) by emphasizing that Lall involved dismissal under statutory rules while Dr. Dutt’s employment was purely contractual.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court noted that even if the award found dismissal wrongful, this did not automatically make the dismissal void. A wrongful dismissal still legally terminates employment though it might give rise to damages. The Court rejected the argument that absence of reasons in the award precludes judicial review of errors apparent on the face.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Arbitrators cannot award specific performance of contracts of personal service.

• Even wrongful or mala fide dismissal does not void employment termination automatically.

• Absence of reasoning in an award does not insulate it from legal scrutiny.

• Section 45 of the Delhi University Act does not override general legal principles governing enforceability of personal service contracts.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall (1948 L.R. 75 I.A. 225)
ii. Ram Kissendas Dhanuka v. Satya Charan Law (1949 L.R. 77 I.A. 128)
iii. Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. (1923 L.R. 50 I.A. 324)
iv. Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay ([1949] F.C.R. 321)

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Delhi University Act, 1922 – Section 45
ii. Specific Relief Act, 1877 – Section 21(b)
iii. Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 33