9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Nature of proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Implied exclusion of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Applicability of the judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Appeals: The primary issue was whether the appeals were maintainable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was argued that the appeals were filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and thus, their maintainability should not be affected by the provisions of the Arbitration Act. However, the court emphasized that an appeal is a creation of statute, and a right of appeal must have clear authority of law. The court noted that the Arbitration Act is a special statute, and its provisions regarding appeals are exhaustive, thereby excluding the applicability of general laws like the Letters Patent for appeals against orders passed under the Act. 2. Nature of Proceedings under Section 36: The court examined whether the proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act were proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 36 states that an arbitral award shall be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Paramjeet Singh Patheja vs. ICDS Ltd., which clarified that an arbitral award is not a decree but is enforceable as one for the limited purpose of enforcement. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 36 are not proceedings under the Code but under the Arbitration Act itself. 3. Implied Exclusion of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent: The court considered whether the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent were impliedly excluded by the Arbitration Act. The court relied on precedents, including Union of India vs. Mohindra Supply Company and State of West Bengal vs. Gauranglal Chatterjee, which held that the Arbitration Act, being a special statute, overrides general laws like the Letters Patent. The court concluded that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, and its provisions regarding appeals are exhaustive, thus excluding the applicability of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 4. Applicability of the Judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.: The court examined the recent Supreme Court judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson, which dealt with the maintainability of appeals under the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, and the provisions of the Act regarding appeals are exhaustive. The court concluded that this judgment is applicable to both domestic and foreign awards under the Arbitration Act, and thus, the Letters Patent Appeal is excluded by the Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appeals were not maintainable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The proceedings under Section 36 are not proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but under the Arbitration Act itself. The provisions of the Arbitration Act regarding appeals are exhaustive and exclude the applicability of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson confirms that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, and thus, no appeal lies under the Letters Patent for orders passed under the Act. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
|
