LexSYAM SUNDER AGARWAL AND CO. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. , SYAM SUNDER AGARWAL AND CO. v. UNION OF INDIA JANUARY 9, 1996 [G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Arbitratio11 Act, I 940 : Section 39--Appellare order passed under--Revision against such an order is pennissible--Held there is 1to express provision in the Act which bars revision against appellate order. Rules for the Albni11istratio11 of Justice and Police in the Khusi and Janitia Hills, 1937: A B c Rule 36-A-Revision against appellate order u11der section 39of Arbitra- D tion Act held pennissible--Revision power under Rule 36-A should be exercised in <.:01~forn1ity with revision power under section 1I5 o.f Civil Procedure Code-Applicabilify of rules Jo 11on-tribals-Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and Com1nissio11er held cloth~d with powers of Civil Court. Code ~f Civil Procedure, 190R : Section I 15-R.evision-Special statute-Provrsion o.f finality-Does not take a\vay revision power o.f High Court. The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent. A dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to a sole arbitrator who passed an award for a sum of Rs, 6,72,645.56 in favour of the appellant, The Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong made the award a rule of court and rejected the respondent's objection filed under section 30 of the Arbitration act, 1940. Respondent's appeal under Section E F 39 was dismissed by Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. A revision was G preferred under Rule 36-A of the Rules for the Administration of justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 and a single Judge referred the revisions case to a Division Bench for adjudication of the issue as to maintainability of the revision. The Division Bench of the High Court answered the reference in favour of the maintainability of the revision and H 245 , 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] l s.C.R. A held that (i) against an appellate order under section 39 of the Arbitration Act a revision lies before the High Court; (ii) there was no provision in the Arbitration Act which puts an embargo on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the appellate order. In coming to this conclusion the Division Bench relied on • derision of the Allahabad High Court in l. B Chnran Dns v. l. Gur Saran Dns, AIR (1945) All. 146 and a decision of Pepsu High Court in Lnl Chnnd v. Dev Raj, AIR (1951) Pepsu 115 and held that the contrary view expressed by a Single Judge in Union of lndin v. D.S. Nnntln & Co., Civil Revision No. 33(H) of 1985 (1991) GLJ 400, was incorrect. c In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that (i) Rules 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 apply only to the disputes between the tribes known as the Khasi or the Janitias. They do not govern the disputes between the non triabal people of the area. Therefore, the revision appli- D cation under Rules 36A was not maintainable; (ii) the Arbitration Act does not contemplate any revision of the appellate order; (iii) assuming that the High Court was clothed with r<evisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to revise an order passed by a court subor- dinate to it no such revisional application was filed and the revisional E application filed under Rule 36A was alien to the scheme under the Arbi- tration Act; and (iv) the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner may be clothed with the power to entertain arbitra- tion award for making the award Rule of Court or to entertain appeal but they cannot be held to be a civil court as contemplated under Section 115 F CPC or a Court as defined in Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. A revisional application before the High Court against an appellate order passed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act is G maintainable. There is no express provision in the Act putting an embargo against filing a revisional application against appellate order under Section 39 of the Act. The Act is a special statute having limited application relating to matters governed by the said Act. Such special statute, therefore, must have its application as provided for in the said statute. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Code or H under any other statute therefore shall not stand superseded under the ) . ' .. SYAM SUNDER AGARWAL F. U.0.1. 247 Arbitra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.