M/s. S.D. Shinde, Contractor, Shree Parvati, Behind Zopadi Canteen, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar v. The Government of Maharashtra, Irrigation Department
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 19961996. 4) In the light of the judgment and of the Apex Court (supra) and in view of the provisions of the enactments of 1940 and 1996, it was held by the Full Bench that no letters patent appeal would lie from an order passed…
Judgment
M/s. S.D. Shinde, Contractor, Shree Parvati, Behind Zopadi Canteen, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar, Through its Partner Annasaheb Sripati Shinde. ... Appellant. Versus The Government of Maharashtra, Irrigation Department And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for appellant. Shri. G.B. Rajale, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. S.M. Goday, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. -------- 2 CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAWARE, JJ. DATE: 23rd NOVEMBER 2010 PER COURT : 1) We have heard learned counsel Shri. R.N. Dhorde for the appellants and learned counsel Shri. Rajale appearing for the respondents. 2) The learned counsel Shri. Rajale appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of the Union of India v The Mohindra Supply Co., AIR 1962 SC 256 and the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Fountain Head Developers v. Maria Archangela Seqeira, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J.
#744. 3 3) In the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court (cited supra), in para 17 it is observed that the provisions contained in Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 are pari materia with section 37(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
#1996. 4) In the light of the judgment and of the Apex Court (supra) and in view of the provisions of the enactments of 1940 and 1996, it was held by the Full Bench that no letters patent appeal would lie from an order passed under section 39 of the Act of 1940. 5) The present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRIHARI P DAWARE, J.)(NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ lpa.109.09
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Nov 2010. The bench was SHRIHARI P DAWARE, NARESH H PATIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.