Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Section 31 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 39 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Mohindra Supply Company on 5 September, 1961
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.