M/S. I.T.L. LTD. versus M/S. SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK LTD.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 20-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. I. T. l. LTD. 
t-
:-
v. 
MIS. SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK LTD. 
MAY 20, 2002 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
Section 37/Section I I 5-Revision before High Court against order passed by 
c civil court in appeal filed under Section 37-He/d, since Section 37 provides 
for an appeal to the Civil Court and application of Code not being expressly 
barred, revision lies to High Court-Supreme Court could in an appropriate 
case entertain an appeal directly against judgment in first appeal-However 
on facts revisional remedy being an efficacious alternate remedy, appellant 
directed to first approach High Court. 
D 
The question that arose for consideration. is whether a revision 
petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code lies to the High 
..,._ 
Court as against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred 
under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and 
E 
whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, such a remedy by way 
of revision is an alternate and efficacious remedy or not. 
Appellants submitted that the right of second appeal is specifically 
taken away under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 
1996 and therefore, by implication revision is not maintainable under 
F 
Section 115_ of the Code; under Section 5 of the Act, there is a bar against 
judicial intervention by any judicial authority unless the same is 
specifically provided under Part I of the Act; since a revision is not 
specifically provided for and the Code not being made applicable to 
~ 
... 
proceedings arising under the Act, a revision to the High Court does not 
lie; and since this Court also has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, 
G this appeal should not be rejected on the sole ground that there is a remedy 
available by way of a revision before the High Court. It was also contended 
that assuming that the remedy of revision is available even then the same 
is not an efficacious alternate remedy because this appeal involves a very 
sensitive issue pertaining to the security of the country and which requires 
H 
extreme urgency in deciding the same and the said requirement will not 
1122 
IT.I.LTD ,,_ S.IEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK LTD 
1123 
be possible if the appellant has to approach the High Court. 
A 
Respondent contended that under Section 37 of the Act an appeal is 
provided to a civil court as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. Though 
there is no specific reference as to the application of the Code to the 
proceedings arising under Section 37, there is no express exclusion of the 
Code either. Therefore, in the absence of any such express exclusion, the B 
appeal being provided to a civil court, the Code should apply to the 
proceedings before the civil court. Also the question of availability of an 
alternate remedy by way of revision to the High Court is no more res 
integra. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: (Per Hegde. J.) 
I.I. In the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 application of the 
Code of Civil Procedure is not specifically provided for there is no such D 
specific exclusion of the Code in the present Act and when there is no 
express exclusion, it cannot be held by inference that the Code is not 
applicable. 11129-E, Ff 
R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar and Anr. v. R. Chandrasekhara Thevar, 
AIR (1948) PC 12 and Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji E 
Dallatreya Bapat, J1969J 2 SCC 74, distinguished. 
Nirma ltd. v. Mis. lurgi lentjes Energietechnik GMBH and Anr., 120021 
5 SCC 520 and Shyam Sunder Agarwal and Co. v. Union of India, 119961 2 
sec 132, referred to. 
2. The jurisdiction of the civil court to which a right to decide a lis 
between the parties has been conferred can only be taken by a statute in 
specific terms and such exclusion of right cannot be easily inferred because 
there is always a strong presumption that the civil courts have the 
jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature, therefore if at all there 
F 
has to be an inference the same should be in favour of the jurisdiction of G 
the court rather than the exclusion of such jurisdiction and there being 
no such exclusion of the Code in specific terms except to the extent stated 
in Section 37(2), an inference cannot be drawn that merely because the 
Act has not provided the CPC to be applicable, by inference it should be 
held that the Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.