CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHI versus M/S. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHI 
v. 
M/S. SCOOT WILSON KIRPA TRICK INDIA PVT. LTD. 
NOVEMBER 10, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Section 37(l)(b)-An appeal 
clearly lies against an order setting aside award or refusing to set aside the 
C award-High Court erroneously held otherwise-Arbitration Act, 1940-
Section 39(l)(vi). 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was 
whether the High Court has erred in dismissing the arbitration appeal on 
the ground of its non-maintainability as the same does not fall within the ambit 
D of Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The question in the instant case is whether appeal was 
maintainable. The High Court did not consider this aspect. The appeal is 
E clearly maintainable u/s. 37(1)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
Therefore, the order of the High Court is set aside. The High Court shall 
deal with the matter and examine the respective stand on merits treating the 
appeal to be maintainable. (842-C-D] 
Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470; State 
F of Goa v. Western Builders, (2006) 6 SCC 239; Dharma Prathishthanam v. 
Madhok Construction (P) Ltd, (2005) 9 SCC 686; Essar Constructions v. 
N.P. Rama Krishna Reddy, (2000) 6 SCC 94; Union of India and Ors. v. 
Manager, Mis Jain and Associates, (2001) 3 SCC 277 and Fairgrowth 
Investment Ltd. v. Custodian, (2004) ll SCC 472, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4759 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 4/6.4.2005 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Arbitration Appeal No. 2/2005. 
Pinky Anand and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant. 
II 
836 
...
CHIEF ENGINEER Of B.P.O.P./R.E.O .. RANCHI v. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK !NOIA PVT. L TO. IPASAY AT, 1.1 
83 7 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Vivek Singh and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the A 
Respondent. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Jharkhand High Court holding that the appeal filed by it was not 
maintainable as the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 37 of the 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act'). 
B 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is clearly C 
maintainable under Section 37(l)(b) of the Act. 
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case 
is covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Popular 
Construction Co., (2001] 8 SCC 470 and State of Goa v. Western Builders, 
(2006] 6 sec 239, and the High Court was justified in holding that the appeal D 
was not maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that certain aspects which 
have not been raised specifically in the grounds raised before this Court but 
submitted during the course of arguments cannot be taken note of. 
Section 37(I)(b) of the Act is in pari materia to Section 39(I)(vi) of the E 
Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'Old Act'). The provisions in the Acts read 
as follows: 
"1996 Act: 
Section 37(l)(b) "An appeal shall lie from the following orders of 
the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of f 
the Court passing the order, namely :-
b. 
Setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under 
Section 34 of the Act". 
1940 Act: 
Section 39. Appealable orders: "(I) An appeal shall lie from the 
following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the 
Court authorized by law to hear appeal from original decrees of the 
Court passing the order :-
G 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
An order: 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
(vi) Setting aside or refusing to set aside an award". 
In Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd, [2005] 9 
B sec 686 it has been held by this Court as follows: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"2 7. In the event of the appointment of an arbitrator and reference of 
disputes to him being void ab initio as totally incompetent or invalid 
the award shall be void and liable to be set aside de hors the provisions 
of Section 30 of the Act, in any appropriate proceedings when sought 
to be enforced or acted upon. This conclusion flows not only from 
the decided cases referred to hereinabove but also from several other 
cases which we proceed to notice. 
28. In Chhabba Lal v. Kallu Lal and Ors., AIR (1946) P.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.