- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nirma Ltd. v. Lurgi Lentjes Energietechnik Gmbh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
This matter concerns a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking leave to file a civil appeal against an appellate order of the XIth City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The underlying appellate order was passed under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court declined to entertain the special leave petition on the ground that an efficacious alternate remedy is available by way of a revision in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a special leave petition under Article 136 should be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy by way of a revision under Section 115 CPC is available.
- Whether the bar on a second appeal under Section 37(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, precludes the availability of a revision under Section 115 CPC against an appellate order passed by the City Civil Court under Section 37(2).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 132 | Support for the view that a revision under Section 115 CPC remains available against an appellate order under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, notwithstanding the bar on a second appeal under Section 37(3). | The court relied on this decision to affirm that the City Civil Court, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2), is a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC, thereby making the revision remedy available. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court declined to entertain the special leave petition because an efficacious alternate remedy exists: the petitioner can file a revision in the High Court under Section 115 CPC. The mere statutory bar on a second appeal under Section 37(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not extinguish the remedy of revision. This is because the City Civil Court adjudicating an appeal under Section 37(2) remains a court subordinate to the High Court for purposes of Section 115 CPC. In reaching this conclusion, the court found support in the decision in Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 132. On that basis, the court dismissed the special leave petition, while preserving the petitioner’s ability to pursue the revisionary remedy and addressing the computation of limitation.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Implications: The petitioner may file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 CPC. For the purposes of limitation, the time spent in the present proceedings—between the date of filing the special leave petition and the date of the order—is to be excluded. The order resolves the matter on availability of an alternate remedy and does not set out broader doctrinal implications.
Order
1. This is a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking leave to file civil appeal against an appellate order of the XIth City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, passed under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition inasmuch as, in our opinion, an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a revision in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Merely because a second appeal against an appellate order is barred by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37, the remedy of revision does not cease to be available to the petitioner, for the City Civil Court deciding an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 37 remains a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. In taking this view, we find support from a decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co. v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 132.
2. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner may file a revision before the High Court and in calculating the limitation, the petitioner shall be entitled to exclusion of time spent in this Court i.e between the date of filing of the special leave petition and today.
Alert