9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1610 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of intra-court appeal - Enforcement of the Award before the District Judge - Expressing disinclination to entertain the Civil Miscellaneous Application (Review) - Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT - On a careful reading of the aforesaid provision, it is limpid that appeal can lie if an order is passed refusing to refer the parties to arbitration as engrafted Under Section 45 of the 1996 Act or to enforce a foreign award as envisaged Under Section 48 of the said Act. In the case at hand, the proceeding was initiated before the learned District Judge. During the pendency of the proceeding, the Explanation of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the 1996 Act was amended - In spite of the amendment, the learned District Judge passed an order. However, the Respondent moved the High Court and it was accepted by both the parties before the learned Single Judge that the District Judge had no jurisdiction and thereafter the learned Single Judge took up the matter and passed the order. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge Under Section 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act is passed in the original side of the High Court. Be that as it may, Under Section 13 of the Act, the single Judge has taken the decision. Section 13 bars an appeal under Letters Patent unless an appeal is provided under the 1996 Act. Such an appeal is provided Under Section 5 of the Act. The Letters Patent Appeal could not have been invoked if Section 50 of the 1996 Act would not have provided for an appeal. But it does provide for an appeal. A conspectus reading of Sections 5 and 13 of the Act and Section 50 of the 1996 Act which has remained unamended leads to the irresistible conclusion that a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable before the Division Bench. It has to be treated as an appeal Under Section 50(1) (b) of the 1996 Act and has to be adjudicated within the said parameters. The judgment of the High Court is affirmed, though for different reasons - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under the Letters Patent of the High Court. 2. Applicability of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Interpretation of the Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986. 4. Interpretation of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the appeal under the Letters Patent of the High Court: The primary issue was whether an appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge in an international arbitration matter is appealable to the Division Bench under the Letters Patent. The court referred to the decision in Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited, which concluded that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a self-contained code. It was held that no letters patent appeal would lie against an order that is not appealable under Section 50 of the 1996 Act. However, the court also noted that if the 1996 Act provides for an appeal, such an appeal would be maintainable under the Letters Patent. 2. Applicability of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act allows for an appeal from an order refusing to enforce a foreign award. The court emphasized that the scheme of Section 50 is clear in providing for appeals in specific instances, and no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section. The court concluded that Section 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act provides for an appeal, and thus, an appeal under this section before the Division Bench is maintainable. 3. Interpretation of the Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986: The appellant contended that the appeal was not maintainable due to the abolition of the Letters Patent Appeal by Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act. The Division Bench relied on an earlier judgment in Padamshri Purushottam Vyas and Ors. v. Tusar Dhansukhlal Shah, which interpreted the 1986 Act and the subsequent amendment in 2008. The court noted that the amendment allowed for appeals under any statute to be heard by a single judge, and further appeals to the Division Bench were not barred. The court concluded that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable in this context. 4. Interpretation of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015: The Division Bench referred to Section 13(1) of the 2015 Act, which provides for appeals from decisions of the Commercial Court or Commercial Division to the Commercial Appellate Division. The court noted that Section 13 bars an appeal under Letters Patent unless an appeal is provided under the 1996 Act. Since Section 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act provides for an appeal, the court concluded that a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable before the Division Bench. The court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, stating that the appeal should be treated as an appeal under Section 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act and adjudicated within those parameters. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable, though for different reasons. The court emphasized that the appeal under Section 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act is valid and should be adjudicated accordingly. The judgment clarified the interplay between the 1996 Act, the 1986 Act, and the 2015 Act, ensuring that the right to appeal is preserved under the specific provisions of these statutes.
|
