Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the State of West Bengal and Gaurangalal Chatterjee regarding the appointment of an arbitrator under an agreement. The respondent had repeatedly requested the State to appoint an arbitrator as per Clause 25 of the agreement, but the State failed to do so. Consequently, the respondent approached the High Court, which appointed Shri D.K. Roy Chowdhury as the sole arbitrator, revoking the Chief Engineer's authority. The State appealed against this order, which was dismissed by the High Court as not maintainable. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the maintainability of the appeal under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act or under the Letters Patent jurisdiction. The court analyzed Section 39, concluding that it explicitly limited the types of orders that could be appealed, and the order in question did not fall within those categories. The court referenced the precedent set in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Company, affirming that no second appeal lay under Section 39(2) against a decision made by a learned Single Judge under Section 39(1). The court found that the High Court's appointment of an arbitrator was justified, as Clause 25 allowed for the appointment of another arbitrator if the Chief Engineer failed to act. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and ruling that the appeal was not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appealability - Maintainability of Appeal - Arbitration Act, 1940, Sections 39(1), 39(2) - The court held that no second appeal lay under Section 39(2) against a decision given by a learned Single Judge under Section 39(1), as the order revoking the authority of the Chief Engineer was not covered under the specified orders in Section 39. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 641-644).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal was maintainable against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act either under Section 39(2) or under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 39(2) or Letters Patent jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Arbitration Act
- appealability
- Letters Patent jurisdiction
- maintainability of appeal
- authority of arbitrator
