Powar and Powar and ors. Vs. C.B.C.i. Society for Medical Education - Court Judgment
|Court||Karnataka High Court|
|Case Number||Misc. First Appeal No. 818 of 1978|
|Judge||G.N. Sabhahit and ;A.K. Laxmeshwar, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1983Kant77; 1982(2)KarLJ332|
|Acts||Abritration Act, 1940 - Sections 34 and 39(1); Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Sections 5 and 10; Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 - Sections 19|
|Appellant||Powar and Powar and ors.|
|Respondent||C.B.C.i. Society for Medical Education|
|Appellant Advocate||G.P. Shivaprakash, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate||S.G. Sundaraswamy, Adv.|
- industrial disputes act, 1947.[c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 33(3): [subhash b. adi, j] scope and ambit of enquiry under held, the scope of the enquiry by the authority under section 33(3) of the act is not to re-appreciate the evidence. whether the evidence is sufficient or not, is a matter which has to be adjudicated by the tribunal in a dispute and not by exercising power under section 33(3) of the act. the question of victimization or unfair labour practice can also be considered by the authority, however, in the present case, the authority re-appreciating the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that, necessary witnesses, who ought to have been examined, have not been examined and the evidence available on record is insufficient to grant permission. that is not a scope of the..........section 39(1)(v) of the arbitration act, 1940, by defendants 1 to 3 before the principal civil judge, bangalore district, bangalore, is directed against the order dated 22-3-1978, passed by the principal civil judge, bangalore district, bangalore, on i.a.no.ii in original suit number 165 of 1977, on his file, rejecting i.a.no.ii for stay of proceedings in the suit viz., original suit no.165 of 1977.2. when the appeal came up for hearing, shri s.g. sundaraswamy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent; raised a preliminary objection that this appeal instituted under section 39(1)(v) of the arbitration act lies before a single judge of this court and not before a division bench.3. that was resisted by shri v. krishnamurthy, learned advocate appearing for the appellants. he.....
1. This appeal under Section 39(1)(v) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by defendants 1 to 3 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, is directed against the order dated 22-3-1978, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, on I.A.No.II in Original Suit Number 165 of 1977, on his file, rejecting I.A.No.II for stay of proceedings in the suit viz., Original Suit No.165 of 1977.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing, Shri S.G. Sundaraswamy, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent; raised a preliminary objection that this appeal instituted under Section 39(1)(v) of the Arbitration Act lies before a single Judge of this court and not before a Division Bench.
3. That was resisted by Shri V. Krishnamurthy, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. He submitted that having regard to the peculiar wordings of Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, the appeal lies only to a Division Bench of this court which is competent to hear appeals from original decrees passed by the Civil Judge in a suit the value of which exceeds Rs.20,000/-.
4. The preliminary point, therefore, that arises for our consideration in this appeal is : 'whether a Division Bench of this court is competent to hear the present appeal?
5. There is no dispute that the power to institute an appeal is provided for in Section 39(1)(v) of the Arbitration Act. The relevant portion of the section reads :
'39 (1). An appeal shall lie from the following 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 :-