Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Breweries Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- arbitration act, 1940. sections 14 & 2(e): [s.b. sinha &v.s. sirpurkar, jj] making award rule of court appropriate court held, while determining the question as to which court would be the appropriate court for the purpose of filing of an award by the arbitrator a distinction has to be made in a case where supreme court had no control over the proceedings and the case in which control of proceedings of the arbitrator had been retained by supreme court. in the former case, having regard to the definition of the term court as contained in section 2(c) award must be filed before a court which has the requisite jurisdiction there over. while deciding such question the principle that the right of appeal should not be taken away, should be applied. there has to be strong reason to deny the suitor a right of appeal. in the instant case, the matter came up before supreme court whence an arbitrator had already been appointed and an award had been made. an arbitrator was appointed by supreme court while setting aside the said award particularly in view of the fact that construction of the contract was in question. the court did not and could not retain any control over the proceedings of the arbitrator. the appropriate court for making award rule of court would not therefore be supreme court. sections 14(2), 8(2), 2(c) & 30: filing of award competent court - arbitrator appointed by the supreme court in substitution of earlier order passed by trial court held, appropriate court for filing of award was the court of first sub-judge and not the supreme court. - state of andhra pradesh), these appeals must fail.suhas c. sen, j.1. following the decision in civil appeal nos. 8479-8482 of 1994 (united breweries limited v. state of andhra pradesh), these appeals must fail.2. mr. b. sen, appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn our attention to clause (ff) of sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the karnataka sales tax rules, 1957, which specifically provides:6(4). in determining the taxable turnover, the amount specified in clauses (a) to (n) shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover as determined under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule (1)-(a) ...to(f) ...(ff). all amounts falling under the head charges for packing; that is to say, the cost of packing materials and cost of labour for packing in respect of goods not liable to tax at the hands of the assessee, whether or not such amounts are specified and charged for by the dealer separately; 3. mr. b. sen has contended that this is an additional ground why appeals should be dismissed in this case.4. the appeals are dismissed. no order as to costs.