Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The agreement further provides that the distributorship of the respondent relates to the whole of West Bengal excluding Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri districts. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-will be kept in deposit with the appellant by the respondent till the distributorship of the respondent continues. The deposit amount will bear simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable annually.

4. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in regard to the distributorship of the respondent which resulted in the filing of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act by the respondent in this Court. In the said application, the respondent prayed for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent alleging, inter alia, that a part of the cause of action arose within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Judge, by the impugned order dated Jan. 25, 1983, granted leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent enabling the respondent to file the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this Court. Thereafter, the respondent, made an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act praying for an interim order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the application under Section 41. The learned Judge passed an interim order dated Jan. 25, 1983 in terms of prayers (a) and (b), which are as follows :

7. The present appeal, therefore, relates to the propriety of the order of the learned Judge granting leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. At the very outset, on behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been taken as to the maintainability of the appeal. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, no appeal lies against an order granting leave under Clause 12 to file an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Counsel submits that in any event, in view of Section 31(2) read with Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, no leave under Clause 12 is necessary for the purpose of filing an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
8. Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that an appeal shall lie from certain orders as mentioned in that section from the orders "passed under this Act (and from no others)" to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order. Under Section 39(1), only certain orders which are specified in that section and passed under the Arbitration Act are appealable, and no ap-peal lies from any other order passed under the Arbitration Act. An order granting leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to file an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not one of such orders as specified in Section 39(1). The question, however, is whether the order under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be regarded as an order passed under the Arbitration Act. Prima facie, it must be said that an order under Clause 12 is not an order under the Arbitration Act.

It is difficult for us to accept the contention of the respondent that an order under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is an order under the Arbitration Act. Neither Section 31 nor Section 2(c) refers to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The question of passing any order under the Arbitration Act will arise after leave under Clause 12 is granted enabling a party to file an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. So long as the leave is not granted, there is no proceeding before the Court under the Arbitration Act and, as such, there can be no order under the Arbitration Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. strongly relied upon by the respondent has no manner of application to the instant case. In that case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether a second appeal was maintainable to the High Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Punjab High Court (Clause 10 being similar to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court) against the order of a single Judge of the High Court disposing of an appeal under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act. It was held that in view of Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, no further appeal lay under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the single Judge. Here we are concerned with a completely different question, namely, whether an order under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent granting leave to file an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is an order passed under the said Act. In our opinion, there can be no manner of doubt that an order under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not and cannot be an order passed under the Arbitration Act and, accordingly, the question that such an order not being one of the orders as mentioned in Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, is not appealable, does not arise. The contention of the respondent against the maintainability of the present appeal, there-fore, fails.