Skip to content


Bhartya Trading Co. Vs. the Controller of Stores, Punjab, Chandigarh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 854 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1974P& H193
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14
AppellantBhartya Trading Co.
RespondentThe Controller of Stores, Punjab, Chandigarh
Excerpt:
.....amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal..........award.'it is clear from this provision that when a judgment is pronounced in accordance with the award, no appeal lies therefrom excepting on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award. the present appeal was not on that ground. the objection as to limitation was raised before the trial court and the trial court held that the application under section 14 of the act was within limitation. the only remedy available to the respondent was, in case the decision on the question of limitation was erroneous, to move this court in revision and that was not done. instead, an appeal was taken to the lower appellate court. as the order of the lower appellate court on appeal is without jurisdiction, there is no option but to quash it.3. this petition is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This petition must succeed on the short ground that the Lower Appellate Court was not competent to entertain an appeal against the order under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, making the award a rule of the Court

2. All that I need to do is to refer to Section 17 which is in the following terms:--

'Where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award.'

It is clear from this provision that when a judgment is pronounced in accordance with the award, no appeal lies therefrom excepting on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award. The present appeal was not on that ground. The objection as to limitation was raised before the trial Court and the trial Court held that the application under Section 14 of the Act was within limitation. The only remedy available to the respondent was, in case the decision on the question of limitation was erroneous, to move this Court in revision and that was not done. Instead, an appeal was taken to the Lower Appellate Court. As the order of the Lower Appellate Court on appeal is without jurisdiction, there is no option but to quash it.

3. This petition is allowed and the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. The parties will bear their own costs.

4. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //