LexUNION OF INDIA versus M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2017) 3 S.C.R. 544 UNION OF INDIA v. MIS. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD: · (Civil Appeal Nos. 4892-4893of2017) B APRIL 13, 2017 c D E F G H [DIPAK MISRA AND A. M. KIIANWILKAR, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 34, 3 7 - Respondent entered into an agreement with appellant in resper;t of reconstruction project - According to appellant, rejpondent failed to adhere to the time frame for completion of contract - Consequently, appellant rescinded the contract - Then rejp01ideni invoked arbitration clause, wherein the Arbitrator passed an mvard holding that the rescindment order passed by the appellant was illegal - Aggrieved appellant filed a petition for selling aside award u/s.34 before the district court, which held petition not maintainab/e- Appellant then challenged the award before High Court along with application for condonation of delay - Single Judge allowed the _ application for condonation of delay - Aggrieved respondent preferred intra court Letters Patent Appeal - Division bench reversed the order of Single Judge by invoking its jurisdiction under Letters Patent appeal - On appeal, held: There is no scope of remedy of Letters Patent appeal in relation to judgment of the Single Judge - No appeal is provided against an order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction condoning the delay in filing the petition u/s.34 - Whether Single Judge had rightly exercised the discretion or otherwise, could be assailed by the respondent before Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition - But, not by way of Lellers Patent Appeal u/Cl. 15 - Jurisdiction - Lellers Patent of High Court at Calcutta - Cl.15. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There is no scope to contend that the remedy of Letters Patent Appeal was available in relation to judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court in question. This legal position has been restated in the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya v/s. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr. [Para 10) [551-E] 544 UNION OF INDIA v. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. 545 2. In the instant case, the Division Bench of the High Court, made a fine distinction by holding that the judgment ofthe Single Judge of condoning delay in filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Act was without jurisdiction and not in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is not possible to countenance this approach. The Division Bench was not right in observing that the decision in Mis. Tanusree Art Printers & Anr. being of a special bench of three-Judges of the same Court, was binding, in spite of having noticed the decision of this Court in l<'uerst Day Lawson Limited - which is directly on the point and was pressed into service by the Appellant. Neither the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta which dealt with the case of Modi Korea Teleco111munication Ltd. nor the three-Judges Bench which decided the case of M/s. Tanusree Art Printers & Anr., had the benefit of the judgment of this Court in l<'uerst Day Lawson Limited, which is later in time. (Para 11) [551-J<'-H; 552-A) ' 3. On a bare reading of Section 37 of the Act, it is noticed that remedy of appeal has been provided only against an order of setting aside or refusing to set a~ide an arbitral award under Section 34(1) (c). No appeal is provided against an order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction condoning the delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act as such. The Division Bench in the impugned Judgment, therefore, rightly noted that remedy of ap1>cal against the impugned order of the Single Judge was not otherwise available under Section 37 of the Act. [Para 13) [552-G] 4. The issue is squarely answered against the Respondent by the decision of Supre111e Court in J<'ucrst Day Lawson Limited. In that, the Judgment of the Single Judge was passed on an application purported to be under Section 34(3) of the Act, for condoning delay in filing of the petition for setting aside the arbitral award. Hence, the remedy of Letters Patent Appeal against that decision is unavailable. The question as to whether the Single Judge had rightly exercised the discretion or otherwise, could be assailed by the Respondent before Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. But, certainly not by way of a Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15. [Para 14J[552-11; 553-A-B) A 8 c D E F G H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.