CHIEF ENGINEER OF B P D R E O RANCHI Vs. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JHARKHAND)
Decided on November 10,2006

CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHI Appellant
VERSUS
SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT. LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BILASPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-145] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S. TEXMACO LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-363] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S BURN STANDARD CO LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT MEDICAL STORES DEPOT, UOI VS. CENTURION LABORATORIES [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-379] [REFERRED]
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD VS. M/S PRAKASH & CO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-260] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. CHANDI [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTELS INDIA LTD VS. BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CONSTRUCTIONS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VS. M/S SNOWLION AUTOMOBILE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(SIK)-2018-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSHRI GINNING & SPINNING (P) LTD. VS. C.A. GALIAKOTWALA & COMPANY PVT LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD VS. PRAKASH & CO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-190] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTELS INDIA LTD. VS. BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S K VIZ [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-485] [REFERRED]
BIJOY KUMAR BAZAZ VS. M/S YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. GURU RAM DAS RICE & OIL MILLS AND PARTNERS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. GAGAN SAHNI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVSHAKTI ENTERPRISES ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR VS. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAGNUM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-382] [REFERRED TO]
Shyam Enterprises VS. Iva Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-3-85] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court holding that the appeal filed by it was not maintainable as the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act').

(2.)Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is clearly maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case is covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. 2001 (8) SCC 470 and State of Goa v. Western Builders 2006 (6) SCC 239, and the High Court was justified in holding that the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that certain aspects which have not been raised specifically in the grounds raised before this Court but submitted during the course of arguments cannot be taken note of.

(3.)Section 37(1)(b) of the Act is in pari materia to Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'Old Act'). The provisions in the Acts read as follows:
"1996 Act:

Section 37(1)(b) "An appeal shall lie from the following orders of the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely :-

b. Setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act".

1940 Act:

Section 39. Appealable orders:

"(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeal from original decrees of the Court passing the order :-

An order: ..................

(vi) Setting aside or refusing to set aside an award".



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.