LexM/S. SURAJMULL NAGARMULL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 s.c.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 163 depend on the decision of the Jaipur:Kotah scheme. If that scheme is upheld, on re-hearm~, the exclu- sion will continue. But if that scheme 1s not upheld, the position may have to be reviewed in connection with. this portion of the Ajmer-Kotah route. In the circumstances no relief can be granted to the appel- lants of the Ajmer-Kotah route at this stage .. The appeals 1're hereby dismissed with costs- one set of hearing costs. Appeals dismissed. M/S. SURAJMULL NAGARMULL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (S. Jr. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. O. SHAH, JJ.) Arbitration-Arbitrator appointed und.r the Defence o/ India Act, if a court-Righl to appeal against the award, if and when, exercisable-Defence of India Act, 1939 (35 of 1939), "· 19(1), 19(1)(!) a7;Zd (g), J9(3)(c)-Defence of India Rules, 1939, rr. 75A, 19, second proviso. ' The appellants were tenants of three warehouses and vacant land, which were used for storage of jute belonging to the appellants. By an order issued under r. i5A of the Rules framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939, the warehouses were requisitioned by the Governme11t. An arbitrator was appointed unders. 19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act to fix the amount of compensation payable to the owner. The claim of the appellants to compensation for loss of earning, and for "loss of business" was rejected by the arbitrator. An appeal filed by the appellants against the arbitrator was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta as not maintainable. ' Held, that the arbitrator appointed under s. 19 of the Defence of India Act is not a court, nor is a tribunal subject f lo to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. By the Act , a right to appeal against the award of the arbitrator is R,:rwat/, Vtrmn ·- State of Rajast'i:mi Wanelloo J. /96J April 17 1962 MIJ. Surajmul1 }( •!tm1tull •• Slet• t1f It' 1st &ngoJ SAoh J. 164 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS (1963) conferred. but the exercise of that right is restricted in the m.inner prescribed by the rules fr3med under the Act. By Ilic second proviso tor. 19 an appeal does not lie against an a\\'ar<l of the :lrbitrator where the amount of compensation awarded doe' i:ol exceed Rs. 5000/- An award dismissing the claim in its cntirctv is one in which the amount awarded docs not exce.d Rs. 5000,-and therefore an appeal lay to the High Court. C1vn. APPELLATE JumsIHCTION : Civil Appeal No. 403 of l!l:l!l. Appeal by 8pecial leave from the judgment ' ~ and order <lated June 27, Hl55, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 28 1!)48. A. V. Viswanatlut Sustri· and B. P. Mohcshwari, for the appellant. B. Sen, P. K. Chalf£rjee and l'. K. Bose, for the re8ponden t. 1962. April 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . --· SHAH, J.--Messr~. Surajmull Nngarmull-who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellants- were tenants of three warehouses and vacant land appurtenant there-topopularly known as the Sham- nagar Jute Godown-sbelonging to Sri Hanuman Seva Trust. The warehouses were used for storage of jute belonging to the appellants. By an order dated August 17, 1943 and issued under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the warehouses were requisitioned and possession t.hereof W&l! taken on September 21, 1943. As the amount of compen- sation payable to the owner of the warehouses could not be fixed by agreement an Arbitrator was appointed under s. 19( l)(b) of the Defence of Indi" Act, 1939. Before the Arbitrator, Sri Hanuman Seva TruHt claimed compensation as owners of the · • warehouses. The appellant claimed compensation ~ for loss of earnings, "damage to husinesa' and ooat r I 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 165 of removal of 18,0llO maunds of j11te and some iron implements, which the appellants claimed had. to be removed in consequence of tho order of requisition. The appellants estimated the compensation at Rs. one lakh. The Arbitrator by his order dated December 13, 1917 observed that the appellants had failed to prove any actual loss of business in conse· quence of the requisition, and rejected the claim of the appellants. Against t,he order passed by the· Arbitrator an appeal was preferred to the Hi;h Court of Judi- cature at Calcutta. The appellants valued the claim at Rs. 1,50,000/-. At the hearing of the appeal, t.he State of West Bengal contended that the appeal was not maintainable in view
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.