Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

arbitration - letters patent appeal - sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of arbitration act, 1940 - appeal before division bench maintainable only when order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by single judge not enumerated under section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained. - - in support of his contention, learned senior counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the supreme court in state of west bengal v. 10. for better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under section 39 of the arbitration act are extracted liereunder:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ordermotilal b. naik, j. 1. this letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single judge of this court in op no.2 of 1997 and op no.4 of 1998. the present lpa relates to op no.2 of 1997.2, when this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the division bench of this court as against the order passed by the learned single judge. since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

Motilal B. Naik, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

An order-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) superseding an arbitration;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) modifying or correcting an award;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

39

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

39(1)

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '436127',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
			'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> An order-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (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. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">39</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '436127',
		(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Visakhapatnam Vs N V Chowdary and Another - Citation 436127 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '436127',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 39(2); <a href="/act/51513/specific-relief-act-1963-complete-act">Specific Relief Act, 1963</a> - Sections 6',
		'appealno' => 'LPA No. 100 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - letters patent appeal - Sections 14, 17 and 39 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 - appeal before Division Bench maintainable only when Order appealed against falls within six categories enumerated under Section 39 (1) - impugned award passed by Single Judge not enumerated under Section 39 (1) - held, appeal cannot be entertained.


 -  -  In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. 10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-04-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilala B. Naik and ;C.Y. Somayajulu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. </p><p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.</p><p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.</p><p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.</p><p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.</p><p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.</p><p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:</p><p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'</p><p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.</p><p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.</p><p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:</p><p>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:</p><p> An order-</p><p> (i) superseding an arbitration;</p><p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;</p><p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;</p><p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;</p><p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :</p><p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.</p><p> (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. </p><p>39</p><p>14</p><p>17</p><p>39(1)</p><p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.</p><p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N.V. Chowdary and Another',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '436127',
	(int) 1 => 'hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/436127/hindustan-steel-works-construction-limited-visakhapatnam-vs-v-chowdary'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of work and the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator so chosen by both the parties and Justice Koka Ramachandra Rao, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on the basis of the claims and counter claims, passed an award on 24-6-1997. OP No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-contractor before this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> seeking to make the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24-6-1997 as Rule of the Court and to pass decree in terms thereof. Whereas the appellant herein filed OP No.4 of 1998 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Arbitrator.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. By a common order dated 25-10-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed OP No.2 of 1997 filed by the first respondent-contractor making the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court and dismissed OP No.4 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Krishna Murthy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that no appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge lies to the Division Bench. According to the learned senior Counsel, under Section 39(1) of the Act, six categories of orders are enumerated which are appealable. However, as the present impugned order so made by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of the <a>Arbitration Act, 1940</a> has not been enumerated as an appealable order in any one of the six categories under Section 39(1) of the Act, the same cannot be appealed against before a Division Bench. He, therefore, stated on this ground alone, the present letters patent appeal has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned senior Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gonrangalal Chaiterjee, 1993 Arbitration Law Reporter (Vol.19) Page 95.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the appellant that as against the order passed by the leaned single Judge, under Clause 15 of the letters patent, an appeal could fee still maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the provisions under clause 15 of the letters patent which empowers the Division Bench to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vanita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai, AIR 1998 SC 424.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. As regards the decision cited (2) supra by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to support his contention that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an order made by the learned single Judge is appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court, it arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in that case held thus:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'Any statutory provision barring an appeal or revision cannot cut across the constitutional power of a High Court. Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. The present case, however, arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge under Sections 14 and 17 of tire Arbitration Act. Meeting a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the decision cited (supra), clarified the law relating to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and held that when there is a specific bar enacted under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for maintainability of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the letters patent appeal cannot be maintained.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are extracted liereunder:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>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:',
	(int) 13 => '<p> An order-',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (i) superseding an arbitration;',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (iii) modifying or correcting an award;',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award :',
	(int) 20 => '<p> Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a small causes Court.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (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. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>39',
	(int) 23 => '<p>14',
	(int) 24 => '<p>17',
	(int) 25 => '<p>39(1)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>12. Having regard to the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), we hold that the instant letters patent appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is not maintainable.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>13. This letter patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109