LexHANSKUMAR KISHANCHAND versus THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
S.C.R.
SU1EME COURT REPORTS
1177
Government though it may bEi that the Government
has no option in certain cases but to appoint an heir
of the last holder; that they hold their office by
reason of such appointment only; that they work
under .the control and supervision of the Government;
that their remuneration is paid by the Government
out of Government funds and· assets; and thai, they
are removable by the Government, and that there is
no one else under whom their offices could be held.
All these clearly establish that Patels and Shanbhogs
hold offices of profit under the Government. In this
view of the matter it has to be held that the nomina-
tion papers of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Gum
Rao were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer
and the election petition is without substance.
.
The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment and order of the High Court are set aside,
and those of the Election Tribunal restored. The
election petition is dismissed.
The respondents will
pa_x the appellant's costs throughout.
Appeal allowed .
•
HANSKUMAH KISHANCHAND
v.
•
THE UNION OF INDIA
(and connected appeal)
(VENKATARAMA ArYAR,GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
Appeal to Su.preme Court-Maintainability-Decision of High
Court in appeal from an award-If and when a judgment, decree or
ord
est-Defence of India Act, r939 (No. XXXV of r939),
s r9(r)(u), r9(r)(j)-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of r908). ss.
09, IIO.
•
•
. rfhese t\VO appeals were preferred against the decision of the
Nagpur Hiih Court in _an.appeal under s. rg(r)(f) of the Defence •
of India Acf, r939, mod1fymg an award of tompensation made
•
v.
Sangappa
Sarkar J.
August 22.
•
•
Jlansk11111nr
/\" islt11trcluuul
'"
Thr. lJ11iv11 of
l 11tlia
1178
[ lli:>9]
under s. I(J(I}lb) of that :\ct in r1~spect of c1·rtai11 prc1nises rl·quisi-
tioncd by the
(~O\'(~fllllh!'It und1.:r 75(.:\) of the Hull!s lra111cd
111111t~r the :\ct.
Both the parties applit'd ior and ohtaine<l lca\·c
to ;1ppeal to tlic Fccl(~r:d Criurt 11nder ~s. 10<) and IIO o( the rr)d('.
nf (i\·il Proccdun~. ,\ prl'li1niu;try ohjl·ctiori \\':1s tak(~ll on behalf
of tl:c (;o,·t·r11111r.nt. that lhe dcci<:-ion of the llil:'.i1 Court \\':I~ an
.
'-•.
. .
a\vc-1rd and not a jlldbnlclll, dccrc(' 1J\' urdcr \~'1thu1 tlit' n1t!;u1-
i11g of ss. I<HJ and 1 Iu o{ the Code arid ns :-:t«:h nu JlJ}H:al l;:iy
therefro1n:
liflci, that the objection :nust p:·t~\·ail and \J~):h the appeal~
..
stand disn1is~cd.
,#
I
'fht·rc coHld be no d•Jubt t'.1at a:1 ctppe,d to tlir l·ligh C'Jllrl
under s. 19(1)(i) of the J)cfcnce of India Act frun1 an a\\·ard
n1ade undt~r s. If'l{I)lb) of that :\ct \Vas es~r:atiallv an arbitratir,n
proceeding an1 l !is such tl:e dt.•cisio11 in such appt·;tl coulc.i 11ot Uc a
1udg1ne11t, clccrec or ()rder rtther under the CoJe uf Ci,·il l'ro-
ccdurl' or under cl. 2~J of the l.t~ttcrs Patl~nt of
tlil~ :\agp1Jr lligh
Court.
/(ol/<;;al Sill: Fi/<1tw •'S Ltd. '" p,.,,,·1;,cr uf ;1/,idras, I. L. R.
I 1<14'] J!ad. ·\<JO, apprU\·.,,J.
There is a ,,·cll-rccogni:: .. cd disti1::·ti•.J11 i.h't\rtcn a decision
gi\'t'll by the (nurt in a c;i:'t~ \\·hich it hears on 111f'rits anct unc
gi\·cn by it in a proi:tedi11g for the hli1~g uf :tn a,,.<i.rd.
Thi~ for-
tner is a jndg1nr.11t, decree or order oi t hl' Court appratahle
under the general la"· \\'liilc llic latter is an ;uljndication oi a
pri\'atc inJividnal ,,·1th the sanction uf the Court sta1nped on it
anll \Yhr.re it docs not e.xc1'L9cl the tcnns uf the rr.ft..:rcncc, ij. is
hnal and not ;lppcat1hlt:.
Thc::.fr. c:an ht'. no dilicrencc in J;l'~· hct\\·c1:n •. 11: arbitration bv
agrr.cn1ent of partii..:s a11tl 01lt: u11ch:r a statute.
~\ rcfl·renc:c
t~1
arhitratiun under~ ~tatutl~ to a court n1a\· he to it either as a
court or as an arbitratol'.
lf it is to it aS a Cnu;·t, the dcci:.;iu11
is a judgrnent. dt•crcc or orrl'-'r apprnlali!·:- 11n•Jer tl1t• oniin;1ry 1~1\\·
unless the statute prcn·iJl'.S othcr\\·ist..:. "·liilc in the latter 1:ase
the Court functions a::: a /Jt"r3ana di;s1g11a!a and its dccisicJn is an
a\\·anl not appcalahlc 111Hlcr the orclinary la\\· but o;1'1y under the
statute a:ict to the extent 1iro\·i<lcd hy it.
:\n app('al bt'i11g 1·s:.;cntially a co11ti1Hl<tlinn ol the nrigin<d
proceedings, \Vhat \\·11.s at its inception aa arbitration proceed-
ing 1;H1st retain its character as an arbitration
prou.~l..'cling c\·cl!
\\'ht·Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.