LexMAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. versus M/S. APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 227 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. v. M/S. APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD. (Civil Appeal No(s).11584of2016) NOVEMBER 24, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss.5, 34, 37 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Applicability of - To appeal u/s. 37 of the 1996 Act - Cross objection by respondent, if maintainable - Held: The 1996 Act is a complete code and s.5 of the same in categorical terms along with other provisions, lead to definite conclusion that no other provision can be attracted - Thus, in the scheme of the 1996 Act, the application of CPC' is not conceived of and, therefore, as a natural corollary, a cross objection cannot be entertained - Distinction from the scheme of 1940 Act, s . ./ 1 of which states that the procedure of CPC would be applicable to appeals - The Arbitration Act, 19./0 - s.41. HELD: 1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it manifests, provides restrictions for challenging the award. It also lays the postulate to assail the award and thus emphasis is on expeditious disposal. It does not permit a second appeal to be entertained as per the language employed in Section 37(3) and also under Section 5 of the 1996 Act. [Para 25) [241-D) 2. On perusal of s.41(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in juxtaposition with the provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it seems that the legislature has intentionally not kept any provision pertaining to the appl!cability of the CPC. On the contrary, section 5 of 1996 Act lays the postulate, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in matters covered by Part-I of the 1996 Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except so provided whereve1· under this Act. Section 5 of the 1996 Act which commences with a non-obstante clause clearly stipulates that no judicial authority shall interfere except where so provided in Part 1 of the 1996 Act. It is clearly perceived, the 1996 Act is a complete Code and Section 5 in categorical terms along with other 227 A B c D E F G H 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 11 S.C.R. A provisions, lead to a definite conclusion that no other provision can be attracted. Thus, the application of ePC is not conceived of and, therefore, as a natural corollary, the cross-objection cannot be entertained. [Paras 11, 281 [234-E; 242-G-H] MCD v. International Security & Intelligence Agency B Ltd. (2004) 3 sec 250 : 2003 (1) SCR 951 - distinguished. c D E !TI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Co111111u11ications Network Ltd. (2002) 5 SCC 510 : 2002 (3) SCR 1122 - held needs re-consideration. Satpal P. Malhotra & Ors. v. Puneet Malhotra & Ors. Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2010 decided on 141h June, 2013 by the Delhi High Court ; SBP & Co. '" Patel Engineering Ltd. & Am: (2005) 8 SCC 618 : 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 688; Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Am: (2007) 1 sec 467 : 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 997; Fuerst Day Lawsoi1 Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2011) 8 sec 333 : 2011 (11) SCR 1; Jamshed Hormu~ji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai & Am: (2004) 3 sec 214 : 2004 (1) SCR 483; P.S. Sathappan (dead) by Lrs. 1( Andhra bank Ltd. And Others (2004) 11 SCC 672 : 2004 (5) Sup11I. SCR 188; Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integraied Sales Service Ltd. and Am: 2016 (9) SCALE 427 - referred to. Case Law Reference F 2003 (1) SeR 951 2002 (3) SCR 1122 distinguished held needs Para 15 G H 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 688 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 997 2011 (11) SCR 1 2004 (1) SCR 483 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 188 2016 (9) SCALE 427 re-consideration Para4 referred to Para 22 referred to Para4 referred to Para4 referred to Para4 referred to Para 20 referred to Para 26 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. v. MIS. APPLIED 229 ELECTRONICS LTD. CJV!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11584 A of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2014 of the High Court ofDelhi inC.M.No.15530of2013. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Saket Sikri, Ajay Pal, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advs. for the Appellant. B Arun Kr. Varma, Sr. Adv., Puneet Singh Bindra, Ashish Joshi, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal tenability of the order dated 28'" July, 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein a Division Bench in CM No. 15530 of2013 placing rel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.