2002 (5) TMI 706 - SC - Companies Law

Whether a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lies to the High Court as against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred under section 37? Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, such a remedy by way of revision is an alternate and efficacious remedy or not? Held that - The supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised by the High Court under section 115 is for the purpose of correcting jurisdictional error, if any, committed by the sub-ordinate Court in exercise of power in appeal under section 37(2). The approach made to the revisional court under section 115 is not a resort to remedy of appeal. In appeal, interference can be made both on facts and law whereas in revision only errors relating to jurisdiction can be corrected. Such revisional remedy is not expressly barred by the provisions of the Act. We have also not found any implied exclusion of the same on examination of the scheme and relevant provisions of the Act.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lies to the High Court against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, such a remedy by way of revision is an alternate and efficacious remedy or not.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The principal question was whether a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'Code') lies to the High Court against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'Act'). The appellant argued that the right of second appeal is specifically taken away under section 37(2), implying that a revision is also not maintainable under section 115 of the Act. The appellant contended that since a revision is not specifically provided for, and the Code not being made applicable to proceedings under the Act, a revision to the High Court does not lie. Conversely, the respondent argued that the Code should apply to the proceedings before the civil court as there is no express exclusion of the Code in the Act. The Court concluded that there is no express prohibition against the application of the Code to proceedings arising out of the Act before a civil court. It held that the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide a lis between parties can only be taken away by a statute in specific terms, and such exclusion cannot be easily inferred. The Court referred to the case of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A., which held that the jurisdiction of a Court is not ousted unless explicitly indicated by the statute.

2. Alternate and Efficacious Remedy:
The Court examined whether the remedy by way of revision is an alternate and efficacious remedy. The appellant argued that the appeal involves a sensitive issue pertaining to national security, which requires extreme urgency and would not be possible if the appellant had to approach the High Court. However, the Court was not impressed with this argument, noting that the arbitration proceedings had started as far back as 2001, and the parties had been litigating on interim applications instead of completing the arbitration. The Court held that there is no urgency that requires treating the case differently and that the sensitivity of the matter and national security would not be compromised by approaching the High Court. The Court concluded that the appellant should first approach the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed, directing the appellant to present a revision petition within 30 days, which would be entertained by the High Court without questioning the limitation.

Additional Reasons by Dharmadhikari, J.:
Dharmadhikari, J. agreed with the judgment and added that the power conferred on the High Court under section 115 of the Code is a supervisory power and not an appeal to correct errors of fact and law. The power of revision under section 115 is to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction and cannot be readily inferred to have been excluded by provisions of a special Act unless clearly expressed. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly or impliedly take away the remedy of revision under section 115. The supervisory jurisdiction under section 115 is for correcting jurisdictional errors committed by the subordinate court in appeal under section 37(2). The Act does not bar the revisional remedy, and the scheme and relevant provisions of the Act do not imply its exclusion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition under section 115 of the Code against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant was directed to approach the High Court first, and the appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →