UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOEL TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 11-4-1997 passed by the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Shillong in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) of 1996, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner on the ground of non-maintainability of it, is the subject matter under challenge in this Revision Petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 and Rule 27 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts of the case in a short compass are as hereunder :-A contract agreement being No. CWE/SHL/3 of 86-87 was entered amongst the parties for Provn. of Md Accn. for Defence Civilians at SE Falls, Shillong, with original date of commencement and completion as 04-08-86 and 03-08-88 respectively. As the work could not be completed within the prescribed period and time for execution of the work was extended up to 16-8-1989, but the work was finally completed on 31-8-1989. In the meantime, a dispute arose between the parties and, as such, the respondent invoked arbitration for adjudication of such dispute and thereafter, the matter was referred to arbitration of a sole arbitrator and after hearing the parties and considering the case and nature of disputes, the arbitrator concerned published his award on 22-4-1992. As the appellant is not satisfied with the award, an application under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was filed on 6-7-1992 i.e. within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of notices of the filing of the original award. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court namely, the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, has made the award the Rule of the Court under the related impugned order dated 27-6-95 passed in (ARB) Misc. Case No. 74 (T) 92 thus decreeing the case under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and making the award a Rule of the Court vide decree dated 28-6-95. Being dissatisfied with the order of 27-6-95 passed by the learned Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong/Trial Court, the present appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 against the said order of 27-6-95 under a related appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96 before the Court of the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Shillong. The learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Shillong, upon hearing the parties dismissed the appeal by holding that the appeal was found to be beyond the period of limitation of 30 days and the same is not maintainable under the impugned judgment and order dated 11-4-97. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 11-4-97 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96, the petitioner filed this Revision petition.

(3.) Mr. B. P. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended, that the appeal is maintainable under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, as the case having risen out of the autonomous area of Meghalaya falling within the Sixth Schedule area inasmuch as, the appellate Court namely, Addl. Deputy Commissioner which is also a Court functioning under the provisions of such Rule and Order and, apart from it, the cases of such areas shall necessarily be governed by the special Acts and Rules framed for the administration of justice within these areas and, likewise,the Court of Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner is also a Court having power to deal with the matters arising out of and from within the territorial jurisdiction under the provisions and Rules framed for administration of justice in the autonomous areas.