Nirma Ltd. Vs. M/s Lurgi Lentjes Energietechink GMBH and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22106 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2001 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in C.M.A. No. 155 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2001 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in C.M.A. No. 155 of 2001)
Petitioner: Nirma Ltd.
Respondent: M/s Lurgi Lentjes Energietechink GMBH and Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22106 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2001 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in C.M.A. No. 155 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2001 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in C.M.A. No. 155 of 2001)
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 14, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. Ashok Desai, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. D.A. Dave, Senior Advo-cates, Mr. P.S. Shroff, Mr. Sunil Dogra, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Advo-cates for M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Advocates with them for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, Mr. Robin Jaisinghani, Mr. Shyel Trehan, Advocates for the Ms. Indu Malhotra, Advocate/Advo-cates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
ARBITRATION/ CONSTITUTION
Constitution
Article 136 with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 115 – Special leave – Grant of – Orders passed by city civil court under section 37(2) of the Act of 1996 – No second appeal under section 37(3) – SLP against said order. Held that leave cannot be granted as alternative remedy of revision under section 115 CPC is available. Case of Shyam Sunder Aggar-wal & Co. ( JT 1996 (1) SC 222 ) relied upon. (Para 1)
Cases Reffered:
1. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal & Co. v. Union of India (JT 1996 (1) SC 222) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking leave to file civil appeal against an appellate order of city civil court no. 11, Ahmedabad, passed under sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition inasmuch as, in our opinion, an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a revision in the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce-dure. Merely because a second appeal against an appellate order is barred by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 37, the remedy of revision does not cease to be available to the peti-tioner, for the city civil court deciding an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 37 remains a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the C.P.C. In taking this view, we find support from a decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder Aggarwal & Co. v. Union of India JT 1996 (1) SC 222.
2. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner may file a revision before the High Court and in calcu-lating the limitation, the petitioner shall be entitled to exclu-sion of time spent in this Court, i.e., between the date of filing of the special leave petition and today.
1. This is a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking leave to file civil appeal against an appellate order of city civil court no. 11, Ahmedabad, passed under sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition inasmuch as, in our opinion, an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a revision in the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce-dure. Merely because a second appeal against an appellate order is barred by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 37, the remedy of revision does not cease to be available to the peti-tioner, for the city civil court deciding an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 37 remains a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the C.P.C. In taking this view, we find support from a decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder Aggarwal & Co. v. Union of India JT 1996 (1) SC 222.
2. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner may file a revision before the High Court and in calcu-lating the limitation, the petitioner shall be entitled to exclu-sion of time spent in this Court, i.e., between the date of filing of the special leave petition and today.
