M/s. Ram Chandra Trading Company Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7450 of 1996
Petitioner: M/s. Ram Chandra Trading Company
Respondent: State of U.P. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7450 of 1996
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 02, 2001
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Arbitration Act, 1940
Sections 39, 16, 30 – Appeal – Maintainability – Four contracts – Dispute referred – Award made in respect of first two agreements – Relief in respect of other two declined – Objections in court – Trial court remitting matter in respect of those two agreements – Appeal against such orders. Held, was not maintainable as no appeal lies in such matters (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali & Ors. (1974 (2) SCC 151) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal arises out of four agreements executed between the appellant and the respondents. The first agreement related to work of colour washing an area covering 19,000 sq. mts. The second contract related to white washing of the houses situate in the campus of the second respondent. The third contract related to distempering in the buildings situate in the campus of the medical college covering an area of 21,300 sq. mts. and the fourth contract related to painting and varnishing of the resi-dences of the buildings situate in the campus of the medical college covering an area of about 4,000 sq. mts. A dispute having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to an Arbi-trator. The Arbitrator made an Award on 14.8.1990. He gave relief in respect of agreements nos. 1 and 2 and in respect of agree-ments nos. 3 and 4 he held that as the work orders were not issued the appellant was not entitled to any relief for breach of the contract committed by the respondents. When the Award was filed in the court to pass a decree in terms thereof, objections were filed and, after hearing the parties, the trial court remit-ted the matter in respect of agreements nos. 3 and 4 as it took the view that the Arbitrator had not decided the matter. Ag-grieved by that order of the trial court, an appeal was preferred to the court of the learned District Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the trial court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. In the appeal before the learned District Judge an objection was raised that the appeal filed by the Principal of the Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The learned District Judge held that the trial court had directed the Arbitrator to make a fresh Award in the light of the directions given in that judgment, it virtually set aside the Award with a direction to the Arbitrator to give a fresh Award and, therefore, fell within the scope of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The contention raised in the district court is reit-erated before us.
3. This Court in Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali & Ors., held that no appeal is provided by the Act against an order of the Court remitting the Award under Section 16 of the Act. Section 39 of the Act opens with a Clause that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed as enumerated therein and from no others. The orders enumerated are as follows:
(i) superseding an arbitration;
(ii) on an Award stated in the form of a special case;
(iii) modifying or correcting an Award;
(iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;
(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;
(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an Award;
Each of the modes in which a proceeding is disposed of by the Court is dealt within Clauses (i) to (vi) but not an order remitting the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act, the principle being that such a decision would mean refer-ring the matter back to the Arbitrator or it is a case for recon-sideration of the matter and no appeal lies in such cases under Section 39 of the Act.
4. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the learned District Judge and restore that of the trial court. In the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their respective costs.
1. This appeal arises out of four agreements executed between the appellant and the respondents. The first agreement related to work of colour washing an area covering 19,000 sq. mts. The second contract related to white washing of the houses situate in the campus of the second respondent. The third contract related to distempering in the buildings situate in the campus of the medical college covering an area of 21,300 sq. mts. and the fourth contract related to painting and varnishing of the resi-dences of the buildings situate in the campus of the medical college covering an area of about 4,000 sq. mts. A dispute having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to an Arbi-trator. The Arbitrator made an Award on 14.8.1990. He gave relief in respect of agreements nos. 1 and 2 and in respect of agree-ments nos. 3 and 4 he held that as the work orders were not issued the appellant was not entitled to any relief for breach of the contract committed by the respondents. When the Award was filed in the court to pass a decree in terms thereof, objections were filed and, after hearing the parties, the trial court remit-ted the matter in respect of agreements nos. 3 and 4 as it took the view that the Arbitrator had not decided the matter. Ag-grieved by that order of the trial court, an appeal was preferred to the court of the learned District Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the trial court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. In the appeal before the learned District Judge an objection was raised that the appeal filed by the Principal of the Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The learned District Judge held that the trial court had directed the Arbitrator to make a fresh Award in the light of the directions given in that judgment, it virtually set aside the Award with a direction to the Arbitrator to give a fresh Award and, therefore, fell within the scope of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The contention raised in the district court is reit-erated before us.
3. This Court in Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali & Ors., held that no appeal is provided by the Act against an order of the Court remitting the Award under Section 16 of the Act. Section 39 of the Act opens with a Clause that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed as enumerated therein and from no others. The orders enumerated are as follows:
(i) superseding an arbitration;
(ii) on an Award stated in the form of a special case;
(iii) modifying or correcting an Award;
(iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;
(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;
(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an Award;
Each of the modes in which a proceeding is disposed of by the Court is dealt within Clauses (i) to (vi) but not an order remitting the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act, the principle being that such a decision would mean refer-ring the matter back to the Arbitrator or it is a case for recon-sideration of the matter and no appeal lies in such cases under Section 39 of the Act.
4. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the learned District Judge and restore that of the trial court. In the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their respective costs.
