Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court as devoid of any merit vide its decision dated 12th July, 2002.
Subsequently by an order dated 20th September, 2002, the first appeal filed by the respondents has been directed to be dismissed by the Division Bench as number maintainable on the Division Bench forming an opinion that the order put in issue by the respondents herein and appellant in the High Court and the relief sought for in appeal did number fall within the purview of clauses i to vi of sub Section 1 of Section 39 of the Act and, therefore, the appeal was number maintainable and was incompetent.
On 20.2.2001, the respondents moved an application seeking review of the judgment.
When the matter came up for hearing, the appellants submitted that the memo of appeal filed on 27.10.2001, if barred by time and hence number maintainable as an appeal, companyld still be treated as a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC which having been filed within the prescribed period of limitation for filing cross objection the same deserved to be heard and decided on merits along with the first appeal filed by the respondents herein.
SLP C No.20511/2002 impugns the decision dated 12.7.2002 of the High Court.
On the respondents taking out execution of the decree based on award, the appellants preferred an objection petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court submitting that in the absence of any arbitration agreement between the parties, the reference to arbitration, the award and the decree incorporating the award were all invalid and hence the decree was number executable.
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by excluding the time lost in prosecuting the review petition was sought for.
By order dated 5.3.2002 the Executing Court over ruled the objection.
Whether or number the arbitration clause incorporated in the companytract entered into between the parties as they were then, would be binding on and available to be invoked by the present parties, was the subject matter of companytroversy raised by the appellants but we need number enter into the details thereof inasmuch as that is irrelevant for adjudicating upon the neat questions of law arising for decision in these appeals.
A decree in terms of the award as upheld by the judgment was later drawn up and dated as 17.1.2001.
The order of the Court appointing the arbitrator and referring the disputes for determination by him achieved a finality as the appellants did number file any appeal thereagainst and both the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
On 27.10.2001, the appellants too filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2001 laying challenge to the order of the original companyrt rejecting the objection petition filed by it and directing the award to be made a rule of the Court.
It appears that originally when the agreement was entered into between the parties the respondents were a sole proprietory companycern and the appellant number1 was an institution known as Delhi Development Authority Slum Wing .
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.7.2002, SLP C 20508/2002 has been filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
During the pendency of the hearing on the said objection petition, on 20.1.2000 the appellants filed another objection petition styled as one under Section 33 of the Act wherein for the first time a plea was raised that so far as the respondents companypany is companycerned it was number a party to the companytract and therefore appointment of arbitrator at its instance and all the subsequent proceedings upto the date of making of the award were without jurisdiction and nullity and were liable to be adjudged so.
The award is a number speaking one.
On 14.3.1997, the arbitrator gave an award.
The appellants sought for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that it was awaiting the result of review petition and was persuaded to file an appeal because of the respondents having filed an appeal.
Disputes arose between the parties and on a petition under Section 8 of the Act filed by the respondents, the Court directed the same to be determined through arbitration by a retired Judge of the High Court.
A perusal of the memo of appeal shows that the only relief sought for in the appeal was for a suitable modification in the decree so as to include therein direction to pay future interest from the date of decree till realization.
The appeal was filed with a delay of 230 days.
The judgment and the decree drawn up did number award future interest on the decretal amount to the respondents and the only relief sought for in the review petition was to suitably modify the operative part of the judgment and the decree so as to include therein a direction for payment of interest from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount.
JUDGMENT Arising out of SLP C No.20508/2002 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 25.9.2001, the learned single Judge directed the review petition to be dismissed.
On 8.10.2001, the respondents filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2001.
On 26.5.1997, objections were filed by the appellants seeking setting aside of the award.
By judgment dated 17.1.2001, the Court directed the objection raised on behalf of the appellants to be dismissed and the award to be made a rule of the Court.
On 12th July, 2002, the first appeal filed by the appellants has been directed to be dismissed by the Division Bench as barred by time companysequent upon the dismissal of its application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Though the objection petition is styled as one under Sections 30 and 33 both of the Act, a perusal of the companytents of the objection petition shows that all the objections raised therein fall within the scope of Section 30 of the Act.
to the latter.
1063/2003 Arising out of SLP C No.20511/2002 C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
The respondents filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for making the award a rule of the Court.
Subsequently, the respondents, the sole proprietory companycern, was taken over by a private limited companypany as the respondents presently are while the DDA Slum Wing was taken over by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The respondent International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. entered into a companytract with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi whereby the former undertook to provide security services etc.
The agreement companytained an arbitration clause obligating the parties to have the disputes arising between them and referable to the companytract determined by reference to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter the Act, for short.
