2003 (2) TMI 498 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Binding Nature of Arbitration Clause
2. Objections to the Arbitration Award
3. Review Petition for Future Interest
4. Maintainability of Appeals and Cross Objections
5. Execution of Decree Based on Arbitration Award

Summary:

1. Binding Nature of Arbitration Clause:
The primary issue was whether the arbitration clause in the original contract between the parties was binding on the current parties. The Court deemed this issue irrelevant for the decision of the appeals.

2. Objections to the Arbitration Award:
Disputes arose, leading to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitrator's award was non-speaking, and the respondents sought to make it a rule of the Court u/s 14 of the Act. The appellants filed objections u/s 30 and 33, challenging the award's validity. The Court dismissed these objections and upheld the award.

3. Review Petition for Future Interest:
The respondents filed a review petition seeking future interest on the decretal amount, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The respondents then filed an appeal before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed as not maintainable u/s 39 of the Act.

4. Maintainability of Appeals and Cross Objections:
The appellants filed an appeal with a delay of 230 days, seeking condonation of delay, which was dismissed. They argued that their appeal could be treated as a cross objection u/r 22 of Order 41 of the CPC. The Court held that cross objections are maintainable in appeals u/s 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, but only if the original appeal is competent. Since the original appeal by the respondents was dismissed as not maintainable, the cross objection could not be heard.

5. Execution of Decree Based on Arbitration Award:
The appellants objected to the execution of the decree based on the award, arguing the absence of an arbitration agreement. The Executing Court overruled this objection, and the High Court dismissed the appeal against this decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that cross objections are maintainable in appeals u/s 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, only if the original appeal is competent. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as time-barred and could not be treated as a cross objection. The execution of the decree based on the arbitration award was upheld.