......................................................................................................................................................................................................
21. In the case of ITI Ltd. (supra), the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was regarding the maintainability of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court against an order passed by a Civil Court in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specially, when a Second Appeal was statutorily barred under the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure was not specifically made applicable. Thus, the question was quite similar to the one referred to us. The Supreme Court opined in paragraph 10 as under:-
"...It is true in the present Act application of the Code is not specifically provided for but what is to be noted is: is there an express prohibition against the application of the Code to a proceeding arising out of the Act before a Civil Court? We find no such specific exclusion of the Code in the present Act. When there is no express exclusion, we cannot by inference hold that the Code is not applicable."
21.1 Rendering a concurring judgment in the said case D.M. Dharmadhikari, J of the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 19 thereof thus:
"...when a special Act on matters governed by that Act confers a jurisdiction on an established court, as distinguished from a persona designata, without any words of limitation, then the ordinary incident of procedure of that court including right of appeal or revision against its decision is attracted..."
21.2 Based on the aforesaid reasoning and following the judgments already referred earlier, the Supreme Court held a revision under Section 115 of C P C to be maintainable against an order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 582 of 2016
Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Vs
State Of U.P. & Anr.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
(Per Hon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)
Date:27th October, 2016
21. In the case of ITI Ltd. (supra), the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was regarding the maintainability of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court against an order passed by a Civil Court in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specially, when a Second Appeal was statutorily barred under the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure was not specifically made applicable. Thus, the question was quite similar to the one referred to us. The Supreme Court opined in paragraph 10 as under:-
"...It is true in the present Act application of the Code is not specifically provided for but what is to be noted is: is there an express prohibition against the application of the Code to a proceeding arising out of the Act before a Civil Court? We find no such specific exclusion of the Code in the present Act. When there is no express exclusion, we cannot by inference hold that the Code is not applicable."
21.1 Rendering a concurring judgment in the said case D.M. Dharmadhikari, J of the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 19 thereof thus:
"...when a special Act on matters governed by that Act confers a jurisdiction on an established court, as distinguished from a persona designata, without any words of limitation, then the ordinary incident of procedure of that court including right of appeal or revision against its decision is attracted..."
21.2 Based on the aforesaid reasoning and following the judgments already referred earlier, the Supreme Court held a revision under Section 115 of C P C to be maintainable against an order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 582 of 2016
Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Vs
State Of U.P. & Anr.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
(Per Hon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)
Date:27th October, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment