LexUNION OF INDIA versus MOHINDRA SUPPLY COMPANY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS UNION OF INDIA v. MOHINDRA SUPPLY COMPANY (K. N. WANOHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J. c. SHAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Arbitration-Order of Subordinate .Judge refuoing to ut a•ide award-Appeal to High Court-Single .Judge allowing appeal-Letters Patent Appeal, whethEr maintainab/£-Interpre- X tation of codifying statu!e.•-lndian Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940) s. 39(2)-Letters Patent of Lahore High Court, cl.JO. A dispute between the appellant and the respondent arising out of a contract for the supply of fuel was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators gave an award directing the appellant to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent' and filed the award in the court of the Subordinate Judge. The ilppellant made an application for setting aside the award but it was rejected. A~ainst this order the appellant preferred , an appeal to the High Court under s. 39(1) of the Indian Arbi- tration Act, 1940, and a Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the award. Thereupon the respondent filed a Letter. Patent Appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge. This appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and the order of the Subordinate Judge was restored. The appellant contended that the Letters Patent Appeal was incompetent ass. 39(2) barred a second appeal from an order passed in appeal under s. 39 ( 1). ' Held, that an appeal against the appellate order of the Single Judge was barred by s. 39(2) of the Arbitration Act. The expression "second appeal" ins. 39(2) means a further appeal from an order passed in appeal under s. 39(1) and not an appeal under s. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, and includes an appeal under the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court, which applied, could, by virtue of cl. 37 thereof, be amended or altered by the Legis- latures. By enacting clause (2\ of s. 39 of the Arbitration Act the Legislature has prohibited an appeal under the Letters Patent against an order passed under s. 39(1). The provisions of s. 39 apply to appeals to superior courts as '\'ell as to "intra-court appeals". Madhavdas v. Vithalda.,, I L. R. (1952) Born. 570 and Radha Krishna Murthy v. Ethirajulu, I.L.R. ( 1945) Mad. 564, approved. Hanuman Chamber of Commerce Ltd, Delhi v . .Jassa Ram '\._~ Hira Nand, A.I.R. (1948) Lah. 64, Banwari Lal Ram Dev v. The Board of Trustees Hindu College, I.L.R. ( 1948) E.P. 159 497 1961 September ~. 1961 Uni'.111 of India .. },/ ohindra Supply Company SI.ah]. 498 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] and M11lc/1anrl Keu-al Chand Daga v. Kis3an Das Griclhardass, (1961) 74 L.W. 408 F.B., disapproved. In considering whether s. 39(2) has taken away the right of appeal under the Letters Patent the court must interpret the \\'Ords of the statute \\'ithout any predisposition towarrl!'i the state of the )a, .. · as it was before the enactment of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In interpreting a statute which codifies the Ja\v it is not permissible to start "·ith the assump- tion that it \\·as not intended to alter the pre-existing la\\'. Narrndra Nath Sircar v. Kom/abasini Da~i, J..R. (1896) 23 I.A. 18, applied. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 there was a conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts on the question whether an appeal lay under the Letters Patent from an appellate order of a Single Judge in arbitration matters. The Code of l 908 by enacting s. 4 and s. 104( I) preserved the right of appeal under any other law for the time being. The Arbitration Act, 1940 removed all the pro\'isions relating to arbitration from the Code and made comprehensive pro. visions in the Act. Though under the Code of 1908 an appeal ~ did lie under the Letters Patent from an order pa.,cd by a Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction that was because the po\\'Cr to hear appeals under a special la"" \Vas expressly reserved bys. 4 of the Code. There is no provi>ion in the Arbitration Act, 1940, corresponding to s. 4 of the Code and there is nothing \\·hich prcsr.r\·es the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent. Accordingly. the Lctten Patr.nt must he read subject to the provisions of s. 39 of the Arbitration Act. l!urrish Chuncler Cho1<·drg '"· Kali Sundari Jlebia, (1882) L.R. 10 I.A. 4, referred to. Crv1L APPEI.r.ATE ,JmnslllCTIO:-< : Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1958. 'I •· Appeal from the judgment and decree dated l\fay 25, 195
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.