ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MARIAMMA SCARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred these appeals under section 39 (1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") since objections raised by the appellants against the award were rejected and the award was made rule of the Court.

(2.) IN both these appeals, preliminary objection has been raised by learned Advocates for the respondents that the appeals do not lie before the Division Bench since the appellants challenge the order passed overruling the objections filed by them and refusing to set aside the Award. In Arbitration Appeal 2/93, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs. 2,00,000/- approximately and in Arbitration Appeal 3/99, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is stated to be Rs. 5,58,532/ -. Learned Advocates for the respondents have contended that the impugned order do not have force of a decree and, as such, the appeal lies before the Single Judge in terms of Rule 2 (1) (a) (v) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the said Rules" ).

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri A. P. Lawande, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 in Arbitration Appeal No. 2/93, has urged that in case of a Decree which follows judgment in terms of award under section 17 of the said Act, the appeal would lie to the Single Judge or the Division Bench, depending upon its valuation in terms of Rule 2 (I) (a) (i) of the said Rules. Nevertheless, an appeal under section 39 of the said Act, would lie before the Single Judge in terms of Rule 2 (I) (a) (v) of the said Rules as orders referred to under section 39 do not have force of a decree. Learned Advocate Shri V. K. Bodke, appearing on behalf of the respondent in Arbitration Appeal 3/99 has advanced similar arguments before us.