AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devinder Gupta, J.—This appeal is against an order passed on 25.9.2001 dismissing the appellants application seeking review of the earlier order dated 17.1.2001 passed by learned Single Judge by which award of the arbitrator was made rule of the court. Challenge in this appeal is also to the order dated 17.1.2001 by which learned Single Judge did not pass any order for grant of interest from the date of decree till payment on the principal amount awarded.
Relevant facts necessary for decision of the appeal are that the arbitrator on 17.5.1996 entered upon reference and on 14.3.1997 made his award. An application was filed on 18.3.1998 by the appellant u/s 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying to make the award dated 14.3.1997 rule of the court in terms of the award and decree be drawn with future interest @ 16% p.a. from the date of decree till date of realisation. On award being filed objections were filed by the respondents to the award. By a composite order, passed on 17.1.2001 learned Single Judge, while dismissing the objection of the respondents held that there was no other reason either to remit or set aside the award, pronounced judgment in terms of the award and decree was directed to be drawn up.
In the application was specific prayer had been made by the appellant for interest from the date of decree till payment. As there was no provision made in the order to that effect, the appellant filed an application (R.A. 9/2001) seeking review of the order dated 17.1.2001 to the extent. The application was dismissed by order dated 25.9.2001 upholding the respondents'' submissions observing that as the order was silent as regards grant of interest from the date of decree till realisation, Therefore, the same will be deemed to have been declined. Learned Single Judge also observed that keeping in view the fact that interest @ 16% p.a. had been granted by the arbitrator in his award, effective at least till passing of decree, conscientiously future interest from the date of decree till realisation was also not allowed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
At this stage, it may also be noticed that respondents'' appeal against the impugned order dated 17.1.2001 reflecting its objections has already been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeal. It was urged that appeal was neither competent nor maintainable u/s 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since it is not one of the orders mentioned in Section 39(1) of the Act against which an appeal would lie. There is also a bar u/s 17 of the Act which says that no appeal shall lie from a decree, which follows the award on being made rule of the court except on the ground that is in excess or not otherwise in accordance with the award.
We have duly considered the submissions made at the bar and do find force in the objection as regards maintainability of the appeal. Section 17 of the Act would not apply to the facts of the case since it is not an appeal under the said provision. In any case scope of an appeal u/s 17 of the Act is very limited. When the Court pronounces a judgment according to the award and directing decree to be drawn up in accordance with the award no appeal is provided u/s 17 of the Act against such a decree. The other provision in the Act is Section 39 under which appeals can be filed only in six categories of cases i.e. (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement; (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement; and (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award. Any order falling beyond the six categories, as enumerated in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act will not be appealable. When an appeal is not provided under the Act against any other order, no right of appeal can be conferred b a Court since right to appeal is a statutory right. The appellants grievance is for non grant of interest from the date of decree till realisation, which can be granted by the court u/s 29 of the Act. An order failing to exercise jurisdiction in not awarding future interest or an order declining to grant such an interest is not an order against which an appeal would lie u/s 39(1) of the Act. (See Mehar Singh and Sons, Contractors Vs. The State of Punjab, Appeal will also not be maintainable u/s 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 which only provides forum for appeal against the judgments of Single Judge of the Court in exercise of Original jurisdiction and does not confer a right of appeal.
In view of the above the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent deserves to be upheld. In this view of the matter was need not go into the merits of the appeal.
Consequently the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.