MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. versus INTNL. SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY LTD.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 951 · Decided: 06-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. 
A 
)· 
v. 
., 
INTNL. SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY LTD. 
I 
FEBRUARY 6, 2003 
... 
B 
(R.C. LAHOTI. BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ. ) 
~~ 
Arbitration Act, 1940-Sections 39 and 41-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908-0rder 41 Rule 22-Cross objections in appeal under Section 39-
Rights to file and maintainability of-Held, right to take cross-objection is 
exercise of substantive right of appeal conferred by the statute-Thus, cross c 
objection maintainable-The subject matter and relief sought therein must 
. )-
conform to the requirement of Section 39{1)-However, if appeal by reference 
to which cross objection has been filed is not maintainable, then the cross 
objection cannot be heard and decided on merits. 
D 
Appellant and respondent entered into a contract and disputes arose 
therefrom. In terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement disputes 
• 
were referred to the arbitrator. Arbitrator passed a non-speaking award . 
..,4 
Respondent filed applicaHon for making award rule of the Court . 
Appell•nt filed objection to the same. Court dismissed the objeciion and E 
1 
made award rule of the court and decree was passed in terms of the award. 
Respondent filed review petition praying for award of future interest on 
the decretal amount which was dismissed by Single Judge. Respondent 
then filed appeal before the Division Bench seeking condonation of delay 
in filing appeal by excluding time lost in prosecuting review petition. 
Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that order put F 
in issue and relief sought for in the appeal did not fall within Section 39(1) 
of the Act. Appellant also filed appeal against the order rejecting o~jection 
petition filed by it. Division Bench dismissed the appeal as time'barred. 
Meanwhile respondent had filed petition for execution of the decree, to 
-
which appellant filed objections which were overruled. Appellant then filed 
an appeal before High Court which too was dismissed. Hence the present G 
appeals. 
The appellant contended that its appeal in Hi11h Court, thou11h 
barred by time, could he treated and heard as cross objection. 
951 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12003] I S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. In all the appeals filed under Section 39 of the 
Arbitration Act, 1940, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
would be applicable. This would include the applicability of Order 41 
including the right to take any cross objection under Rule 22 thereof to 
B appeals under Section 39 of the Act. 1960-E, Fl 
1.2. Right to prefer cross objection partakes of the right to prefer 
an appeal. When the impugned decree or order is partly in favour of one 
party and partly in favour of the other, one party may rest contended by 
C his partial success with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation. However, 
he may like to exercise his right of appeal if he finds that the other party 
was not interested in burying the hatchet and proposed to keep the lis alive 
by pursuing the same before the appellate forum. He too may in such 
circumstances exercise his right to file appeal by taking cross objection. 
Thus taking any cross objection to the decree or order impugned is the 
D exercise of right of appeal though such right is exercised in the form of • 
taking cross objection. The substantive right is the right of appeal; the 
form of cross objection is a matter of procedure. [960-G, H; 961-AI 
. 1.3. Right to take a cross objection is the exercise of substantive right . 
of appeal conferred by a statute. Available grounds of challenge against 
E the judgment, decree or order impugned remain the same whether it is 
an appeal or a cross-objection. The difference lies in the form and manner 
of exercising tht right; the terminus a quo-the starting point of limitation 
also differs. 1962-FI 
1.4. Once it is held that by taking cross objection what is being 
F exercised is the right of appeal itself, it follows that the subject-matter of 
cross objection and the relief sought therein must conform to the 
requirement of Section 39(1). In other words, a cross objection can be 
preferred if the applicant could have sought for the same relief by filing 
an appeal in conformity with the provisions of Section 39(1) of the Act. If 
G the subject-matter of the cross objection is to impugn such an order which 
does not fall within the purview of any of the categories contemplated by 
clauses 

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