Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
Penugonda Radhakrishnamurthy
Versus
V.A.Y. Ethirajulu Chetty and Co. and Ors.
Decided On : 18.10.1944
Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 - Extension of Time - The court considered an appeal regarding the extension of time allowed to an umpire for passing an award under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Two applications were filed in the City Civil Court for extending the time allowed to an umpire for passing the award. The umpire awarded the first respondent a sum of Rs. 600, but the award was not made within the allowed time. The Principal Judge of the City Civil Court refused the applications, stating that granting them would cause the opposite party to lose valuable rights. The first respondent appealed to the higher court, which allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal with costs, citing the provision of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, which states that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in an appeal under the section.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appeal regarding the extension of time under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, was admissible, considering the provisions of Section 39 and the Letters Patent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal did not lie as per the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, and the Letters Patent, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Kuppuswami , Ayyar, J., setting aside an order of the Principal Judge of the Gity Civil Court under the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Two applications had been filed in the City Civil Court for an order extending the time allowed to an umpire for the passing of his award. The umpire awarded the first respondent a sum of Rs. 600; but the award was not made within the time allowed by law. The principal Judge of the City Civil Court refused the applications on the ground that by granting them the opposite party would lose valuable rights. The first respondent then appealed to this Court. Kuppuswami Ayyar, J., considered that the application for extension of time should have been granted, and allowed the appeal. Accordingly he sent the case back to the City Civil Court to decide the other points raised in the proceedings.
2. A preliminary objection has been taken! It is contended that this appeal does not lie by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 39 which says that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in an appeal under the section, although nothing in the section shall affect or take away a right to appeal to His Majesty in Council This objection is sound. It is true that Clause 15 of the Betters Patent, if it stood alone, would allow the appeal; but Clause 44 of the Letters Patent says that the provisions are subject inter alia to the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Legislative Council. The Indian Arbitation Act is an Act of the Central Legislature and the provisions of Section 39 must prevail.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
