- (1.) This appeal arises out of four agreements executed between the appellant and the respondents. The first agreement related to work of colour washing an area covering 19,000 sq. mts. The second contract related to white washing of the houses situate in the campus of the second respondent. The third contract related to distempering in the buildings situate in the campus of the medical college covering an area of 21,500 sq. mts. and the fourth contract related to painting and varnishing of the residences of the buildings situate in the campus of the medical college covering an area of about 4,000 sq. mts. A dispute having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to an Arbitrator. The arbitrator made an Award on 14.8.1990. He gave relief in respect of agreements nos. 1 and 2 and in respect of agreements nos. 3 and 4, he held that as the work orders were not issued the appellant was not entitled to any relief for breach of the contract committed by the respondents. When the Award was filed in the court to pass a decree in terms thereof, objections were filed and, after hearing the parties, the trial court remitted the matter in respect of agreements nos. 3 and 4 as it took the view that the Arbitrator had not decided the matter. Aggrieved by that order of the trial court, an appeal was preferred to the court of the learned district Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the trial court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(2.) In the appeal before the learned District judge an objection was raised that the appeal filed by the Principal of the Maharani laxmi Bai Medical College is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The learned District Judge held that the trial court had directed the arbitrator to make a fresh Award in the light of the directions given in that judgment, it virtually set aside the Award with a direction to the Arbitrator to give a fresh Award and, therefore, fell within the scope of section 39 of the Arbitration Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The contention raised in the district court is reiterated before us.
(3.) This Court in Iftikhar Ahmed and Ors. v. Syed Meharban All and Ors. , held that no appeal is provided by the Act against an order of the Court remitting the Award under Section 16 of the Act. Section 39 of the act opens with a Clause that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed as enumerated therein and from no others. The orders enumerated are as follows: (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an Award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an Award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement; (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement; (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an Award; each of the modes in which a proceeding is disposed of by the Court is dealt within clauses (i) to (vi) but not an order remitting the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act, the principle being that such a decision would mean referring the matter back to the Arbitrator or it is a case for reconsideration of the matter and no appeal lies in such cases under Section 39 of the Act.;