State of Punjab v. M/s Globe Construction Company & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 14.6.2001 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, in Arbitration Application No. 7/98, whereby the objections filed by respondent no. 1 against the award of the Arbitrator were accepted, whereas the objections filed by the present appellant, were dismissed. In terms of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the appeal against the order setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is maintainable to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees or order. In terms of the provisions of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (for short, 'the Act'), appeal lies to the District Judge from order/ decree of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division). However, his pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to ` 5 lacs. As the amount involved in the present appeal is more than ` 10 lacs, the State filed appeal in this court. With the amendment carried out in Punjab Courts Act vide Amendment Act No. 29 of 2006, the District Judge has been empowered to hear appeals from the orders and decrees of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) irrespective of the value of original suit. It has further been provided in Section 39 (4) of the amended Act that all appeals from a decree or order of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division), pending in this court shall be FAO No. 3111 of 2002 (2) transferred to the District Judge exercising ordinary territorial jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid amendment, the present appeal is remitted to the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, to be dealt with in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur on
19.2.2011. As respondent no.1 remained unrepresented, his service be effected by the court below. Disposed of.
24.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration Act, 1940 — s. 39; Punjab Courts Act, 1918; Punjab Courts Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 24 Jan 2011. The bench was RAJESH BINDAL.
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.