State of U.P.and another vs Satya Narain Agrawal

Dr. Satish Chandra, J.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.C. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

This is an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, in sort Act, against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2006, passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST Act/Addl. District Judge, Lucknow in a proceeding under Section 39 of the Act.

Brief facts of the present case are discussed as under :

The private respondent entered into a contract with the appellants with regard to certain construction of work. On account of dispute between the parties, the matter was referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator rendered an award dated 15.1.1999, against which an appeal was filed. Objections under Section 30/33 of the Act were filed in the year 1990. Objections were rejected by the Civil Judge by order dated 29.11.1995. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred an appeal under Section 39 of the Act before the District Judge which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.3.2006. Against the order dated 21.3.2006, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the present appeal is not maintainable as it has been preferred under Section 39 of the Act which was already invoked by the appellants before the District Judge. Section 39 of the Act is reproduced as under :

"39. Appealable orders. (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:

An order

(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;

(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court.

(2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the [Supreme Court]."

A plain reading of SubSection (2) of Section 39 of the Act provides that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this Section, meaning thereby that there is a statutory bar with regard to filing of another appeal against the decision rendered by the District Judge while deciding the statutory appeal under Section 39 of the Act.

Keeping in view the provisions contained in Sub Section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, present appeal seems to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. It is clarified that we have not entered into merit of the controversy while dismissing the appeal.

Costs made easy.