An order refusing to appoint a Receiver under Section 41 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, is not an order 'passed under this Act' within the meaning of Section 39(1) of the Act, and therefore, no appeal lies against such an order.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by Mallick, J. on the 28th August, 1962 whereby he dismissed two applications for the appointment of a Receiver, one in respect of a Trust known as the 'ram Ranjan Trust', and another in respect of a Trust Known as the Brojabala Trust. The applications were dismissed on a preliminary ground, namely, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the applications. The short facts are as follows: Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravartti of Hetampur created a trust known as the 'ram Ranjan Trust', by a Deed of trust dated 11th August, 1887; and his wife Maharani Padma Sundari Debi created another trust called the 'brojabala Trust' by a Deed of trust dated 27th February, 1895. These trusts related to various immoveable properties situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The trusts were created for various purposes including the Seva Puja of certain deities and for certain charitable purpose. On or about 13th November, 1950 the respondent No. 1, Suranjan Chakravartti, then a minor, acting through his mother Sm. Jyotishamoyee Debi, instituted two suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Birbhum at Suri, being Suits Nos. T. S. 110 and 111 of 1950, against the other trustees, inter alia for removal of trustees, for appointment of new trustees, framing of a scheme, for the management and administration of the trust, for the appointment of a Receiver and other reliefs. T. S. 110 of 1950 was in respect of the Ram Ranjan trust Estate, and T. S. 111 of 1950 was in respect of the Brojabala Trust Estate. In the said suits applications were made for the appointment of Receiver, and a Receiver was appointed. Appeals were preferred against the said orders to this Court, being F. M. A. No. 36 and F. M. A No. 37 of 1951. At that stage, the disputes between the parties were settled and a compromise petition was put in. The compromise petition was prepared and signed within the jurisdiction of this Court and provided inter alia that the terms of settlement will be sent down to the Suri Court with a direction to pass a decree in terms thereof. Accordingly, the matter went back to the Suri Court and a compromise decree was passed. Under the said compromise decree, a scheme was framed for the management and administration of the trust Estate. The scheme contained provisions as to where the office of the trust Estate will be situated, how the Manager should be appointed to look after the trust Estate and various other matters. There was an arbitration clause for reference to Arbitration, in case disputes arose amongst the Trustees.

( 2 ) DISPUTES having arisen amongst the Trustees, a reference was made to arbitration of a number of Arbitrators. It is stated that all the Arbitrators are persons residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Thereupon, three applications were made before this Court; one for the appointment of an Umpire under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act and the remaining two for the appointment of Receiver, one in respect of the 'ram Ranjan Trust' and the other in respect of the 'brojabala Trust'. The application under Section 8 was first decided by Mallick, J. , and ha held that in order to maintain the application it was a precondition that leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent should have been obtained. As it had not been obtained, the learned Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and accordingly dismissed it. As regards the two applications for appointment of a Receiver, with which we are really concerned. In this case, the learned Judge held that he should follow his judgment in the case abovementioned, under Section 9 of the, Indian Arbitration Act, and hold that in respect of these two applications also, he had no jurisdiction, for the same reason namely, that these applications required a prior leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and such, leave not having be