LexNEERAJ MUNJAL AND ORS versus ATUL GROVER MINOR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f- NEERAJ MUNJAL AND ORS. v. A TUL GROVER MINOR AND ANR. MAY 5, 2005 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss. 21and85-Commencement of arbitration proceedings-Effect of repealing provision-Arbitrator appointed A B by order dated 19.5.1995-Award made on 19.8. 1996-Parties neither accepted C nor proceeded on the basis of 1996 Act-Held, provisions of 1940 Act would govern the proceedings-High Court would consider objections under ss. 30 and 33 of 1940 Act on merits-Arbitration Act, 1940-ss. 30 and 33-Res- judicata-Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In a complaint filed before the National Consumer Disputes D Redressal Commission, the National Commission, at the request of the parties referred the dispute for consensual adjudication by arbitration. The arbitrator was appointed by order dated 19.5.1995. Award was made on 19.10.1996. The National Commission accepted the award. The appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court by its order dated 16.1.2003 held that the Commissi9n was required to decide E the complaint on the basis of evidence and not by referring it to arbitrator. However, the Court observed that it would be open to the "respondent to enforce the award under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent filed an application for execution. The appellant filed objections. The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the objections F on the ground, inter alia, that the Supreme Court in its order dated 16.1.2003 did not grant liberty to challenge the award. It was also observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 having been passed on 19.10.1996 would apply. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the parties to seek clarification of the order dated 18.1.2003. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1.1. A court of law has no jurisdiction to direct a matter to 11 H 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. A be governed by one statute when provisions of another statute are ·-" applicable. This Court merely directed the parties to enforce the said award which would mean that the same should be enforced in accordance with law. If a party to the lis has a right to question an award in terms of the Arbitration Act, 1940, no cour! has the requisite jurisdiction to deprive B . him therefrom. (16-G] . Skypak Couriers Ltd. etc. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. etc., [2000] 5 SCC 294, relied on. i't. 1.2. It is not a case where the parties accepted or proceeded on the . c basis that the Arbitration and Conciliation A~t, 1996 would govern the arbitral proceedings. The reference admittedly was made prior to coming into force of the 1996 Act. The provisions contained in the 1940 Act would govern the proceedings arising out of the award and not the 1996 Act. Reference to the 1996 Act was a inere inadvertence on the part of this Court. The Single Judge of the High Court was also not correct in holding D that as no leave to challenge the award was granted by this Court, t.he appellants could not avail the remedies provided for under the 1940 Act. (16-C; 18-F, G[ 2. lt is not in dispute that the question as regards applicability of the 1940 Act and the 1996 Act has not been gone into by this Court or E the Division Bench of the Hig~ Court. The order of this Court dated ~· ~5.7.2003 would not be a bar for the appellants to approach this Court again; particularly in view of the fact that the Division Bench itself has refused to go into the said question and asked the parties to file an application before this Court for clarification. The principle of res-judicata F in a situation of this nature cannot be said to have application. · (18-H; 19-A] Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd., (2004) 7 SCC 288 and UP. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Jain Construction Co. and Anr., [2004) 7 SCC 332, relied on. G Thyssen Stahlunion GMBHv. Steel Authority of India Ltd., [1999) 9 SCC 334 and Furest Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356, referred to. ... ·. 3. The High Court would consider the appellants' objections under H Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act by a bench having requisite - f- i....4c NEERAJ MUNJAL v. ATUL GROVER MINOR [S.B. SINHA, J.] 13 determination thereover on its own merit. (19-C) A Shakuntla Devi v. Kanila and Ors., (2005)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.