STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus GAURANGALAL CHATTERJEE

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 11-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
GAURANGALAL CHATTERJEE 
MAY 11, 1993 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SARAI, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 39 ( 1) and ( 2 >-Letters Patent Jurisdiction 
Clause 15-An appeal against the order passed by Single Judge of High Court 
under Section 39 (]}-Whether appealable u/s 39 (2) or tmder Letters Patent 
c Jurisdiction-Section 39( 1) itself la)·s down when an appeal could be filed-Appeal 
held not maintainable. 
Despite several letters by the respondent to the Chief Engineer Public 
works Department the State did not appoint any Arbitrator as provided in 
Clause 25 of the agreement. 
D 
Shri D.K. Roy Choudhry who was appointed as a sole Arbitrator by the 
learned Single Judge revoking the authority of the Chief Engineer to act as an 
Arbitrator under the agreement. 
On.appeal by the State under Section 39(2) ofthe Act or under Letters 
E 
Patent. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court. 
.. 
Appeal dismissed, 
F 
HELD: 1. Section39 of the Arbitration Actcameupon for consideration 
in U.0.1. v. Mohindra Supply Company [1962] 3 SCC 497 and the Court held 
that .flO Second Appeal lay under section 39(2) against a decision given by a 
learned Single Jutfge under Section 39(1). Arbitration Act is a consolidating 
<:! 
and amending act relating to arbitration, it must be construed without any 
G assumption that it was not intended to alter the law relating to appeals. The· 
Court held that in view of bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 39 
.. 
' 
debarring a second appeal from an order passed in appeal under sub-section 
(1) that the 'conclusion was inevitable that it was so done with a view to restrict 
the right of appeal within strict limits defined by Section 39'. Therefore the 
H 
~intainability of the appeal under Letters Patent it stands concluded by this 
.\ 
- -- ' 
. STAlEOFWESTBENGALv.GAURANGALALCHATlERJEE 
641 
decision. (642-G-H) 
\ 
-2. Sub-section (1) or Section 39 or the Arbitration Act is extracted 
below:-
.. 
';~ 
"(1) An appeal shall lie Crom the rollowing orders passed under 
this Act (and Crom no others) to the Court authorised bv law to 
hear app;,als rrom original decisions or the Court p,..;ing the· 
orile'r. 
An order-
0) superseding an arbitration; 
(ii) on an award stated in the form oh special case; 
C,iil modifying or correcting_an award; 
' 
(iv) ruing or refusing-to nle an arbitration agreement; 
(•)staying or refosi_ng to stay legal proceedings where there is 
an arbitration agree~eµ.~; 
(vi) Setting aside or r~fusing to sCt aside an award; 
Provided that the provisions or this Section shall not apply to 
any order passed by a Small Causes Court._ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
. .-
\~I 
F 
· _(2) No second appe:i.l,shall_lie Crom an ord~,r p~ed in appeal 
'.under this ~<;t~on, .but nothing in this ~<;ti~n sh:ilI aff ector take 
........ away any right tO appeal to the Suprem~_Court". (643-D-E-G-
m . 
'.,.. 
, 
. \. 
. .• .. 
. .. . : 
. 
\,-~ ';:.,\', 
:·-· '.~.-··'.: ··." '. 
Provides that an appeal could lie o~J1 rrom th~ n~ifers mentioned in the G 
sub-section itself.Since the order passed by le.arne\f Si,i;gro Judge revoking the 
authority or the Chier Engineer on his failure to acta5 an Arbitrator was not 
·. covered in either or the six clauses mentioned in Section 39 it is obvious that . · 
· no .appeal could be riled against the order of the learned Single Judge. (644-
' 
H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 1993. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5. 1992 of the Calcutta High Court in 
Appeal No. Nii of 1992 in Matter No. 21of1991. 
P.S. Poti, and S.K. Nandy for the Appellant. 
K. Parasaran, A.K. Ganguli, G.K. Banerjee and. Som Manda! for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
R.M. SABAi, J. The short and the only question of law that arises for 
consideration in this appeal is if an appeal was maintainable against an order 
passed by the L.earned Single Judge under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act· 
either under Section 39(2) of the Act or under the Letters patent jurisdiction. 
Facts are not io dispute. Since the State did not appoint any arbil(ator as 
provided for in clause 25 of the agreement despite letters by the responde~t to the 
Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D) and the Secretary P.:\V'.D. the 
respondent approached the High Court and a Learned S

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