9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1275 - SC - Indian LawsArbitration - an order not appealable u/s 50 - jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent - HELD THAT - No letters patent appeal will lie against an order which is not appealable u/s 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We, thus, arrive at the conclusion regarding the exclusion of a letters patent appeal in two different ways; one, so to say, on a micro basis by examining the scheme devised by sections 49 and 50 of the 1996 Act and the radical change that it brings about in the earlier provision of appeal u/s 6 of the 1961 Act and the other on a macro basis by taking into account the nature and character of the 1996 Act as a self-contained and exhaustive code in itself. In the result, Civil Appeal No.36 of 2010 is allowed and the division bench order dated May 8, 2007, holding that the letters patent appeal is maintainable, is set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order, not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to appeal under the Letters Patent of the High Court. 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent is excluded by the 1996 Act either expressly or impliedly. 3. The nature of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as a self-contained code. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Appealability of Orders under Section 50 of the 1996 Act: The primary question was whether an order, though not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could still be appealed under the Letters Patent of the High Court. The Court examined if the 1996 Act constitutes a complete code for arbitration matters. If so, it would exclude other jurisdictions, including the Letters Patent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court concluded that no letters patent appeal would lie against an order not appealable under section 50 of the 1996 Act. This conclusion was reached by analyzing the scheme of sections 49 and 50 of the 1996 Act, which significantly changed the previous law under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, by making the award itself a decree of the court, thereby removing the possibility of an appeal. 2. Exclusion of High Court's Letters Patent Jurisdiction: The Court considered whether the 1996 Act expressly or impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court under its Letters Patent. It was argued that the jurisdiction under the Letters Patent is independent and should remain unless expressly excluded. However, the Court found that the 1996 Act, being a self-contained code, implicitly excludes the applicability of the general law procedure, including the Letters Patent jurisdiction. The Court relied on the principle that when a special Act sets out a self-contained code, the general law procedure is impliedly excluded. 3. Nature of the 1996 Act as a Self-Contained Code: The Court examined the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and concluded that it is a self-contained code. This conclusion was supported by the legislative history and the comprehensive nature of the Act, which consolidates and amends the law relating to arbitration, including domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Court noted that the 1996 Act, like its predecessor, the Arbitration Act, 1940, is designed to be exhaustive and comprehensive, thereby excluding any other jurisdiction not provided within the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that no letters patent appeal would lie against an order not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that the 1996 Act is a self-contained code that implicitly excludes the applicability of the general law procedure, including the Letters Patent jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals in Civil Appeal No.36 of 2010 and the appeals arising from SLP (C) No.31068 of 2009 and SLP (C) No.4648 of 2010 were dismissed. The SLP (C) Nos.13626-13629 of 2010 and SLP (C) Nos.22318-22321 of 2010 were dismissed insofar as they challenged the orders of the division bench holding that the letters patent appeals were not maintainable.
|
