Open iDraf
Penugonda Radhakrishnamurthy v. V.a.y. Ethirajulu Chetty And Company And Another

Penugonda Radhakrishnamurthy
v.
V.a.y. Ethirajulu Chetty And Company And Another

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Letters Patent Appeal No. 7 Of 1944 | 18-10-1944


(Prayer: Appeal (disposed of on 18-10-1944) under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Kuppuswami Ayyar, J. dated 4-11-43 in A.A.O. No. 152 of 1943 preferred against the order of the Court of the City Civil Court, Madras dated 29-12-42 and made in O.P. No. 117 of 1941.)

This is an appeal from the judgment of Kuppuswami Ayyar, J. setting aside an order of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court under the provisions of S. 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 allowing 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 applications 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.

A preliminary objection has been taken. It is contended that this appeal does not lie by reason of Sub-S. (2) of S. 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 Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, if it stood alone, would allow the appeal; but Cl. 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 Arbitration Act is an Act of the Central Legislature and the provisions of S. 39 must prevail.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Advocates List

For the Appellant C. Vasudevan, Advocate. For the Respondents B. Venkataramiah, Advocate.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. LEACH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHABUDDIN

Eq Citation

(1945) 1 MLJ 54

(1945) ILR MAD 564

1945 MWN 164

AIR 1945 MAD 184

LQ/MadHC/1944/257

HeadNote

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Ss. 39(2) and 44 — Non-maintainability of appeal to Supreme Court under Cl. 15 of Letters Patent — Held, appeal not maintainable — Appeal dismissed — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 34