1996 (1) TMI 461 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the Arbitration Act.
3. Applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in revisional jurisdiction.
4. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act regarding appeals and revisions.
5. Applicability of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937 to non-tribal disputes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Rule 36A:
The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, a second appeal from an appellate judgment and order is expressly barred. However, it noted that there is no provision in the Arbitration Act that bars the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the appellate order. The High Court relied on precedents from the Allahabad High Court and Pepsu High Court, which held that a revision lies before the High Court against an appellate order under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench concluded that the revision application under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937, was maintainable and should be disposed of on merits by the appropriate Single Bench of the High Court.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner:
The Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong was competent to entertain an arbitration award filed before it for the purpose of making it a rule of court. The Deputy Commissioner was also competent to entertain appeals from the decisions of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had filed the arbitration award in the court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and conceded to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in entertaining the appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act.

3. Applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The Supreme Court observed that the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while exercising powers under the Arbitration Act, act as civil courts. Therefore, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable. The Court emphasized that the revisional power under Rule 36A of the Rules must be exercised in conformity with the revisional power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to avoid hostile discrimination.

4. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act:
Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act explicitly bars a second appeal from an appellate order under Section 39. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this bar does not extend to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court cited precedents to support the view that the bar of a second appeal does not oust the High Court's revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that the revisional application under Rule 36A was maintainable and should be considered in conformity with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

5. Applicability of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937:
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contention that the Rules apply only to disputes between the Khasi or Janitia tribes. The Court noted that the Rules provide for the trial of civil disputes by village authorities and other competent authorities in the area where the Rules are applicable. The Court emphasized that the Rules extend to all indigenous inhabitants of the hills and are not limited to the Khasi or Janitia tribes. The Court concluded that the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, a civil court constituted under a special statute, is subject to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the revision petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937. The Court directed the High Court to dispose of the revisional application on merits as early as possible, within four months from the date of communication of the order. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.