Full Judgment Text
2000:DHC:6186-DB
Sbcci
foCgr.-14r; Oonhrdoo
$r.
Singhvi Sr Adv with
Presenl: Dr. A. H.
Mr Tyagi
. Punit D. for tho Appellant
Mr - S Chandiok Adv
. .4. . Sr with
Ms
Mr, Sanjiv Grover and Jyoti
Respondent.
Mendiratta for the
L5-2-
g.U:5g-91?g*oj.
co ndo nat, io n )
[f or
$
condoned
Delay
FAo(.p-s-).-aL-/2999El-g.t-,r-5p.-8.J2.9*o...g..-
daLed
This Appeal is against an Order
t7
.Lt.L999 by whioh a Petition under Sectlon 9 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act Lgg6
n
(
AcL
hereinafter called the said by the
) fited
Appellant herein has been dismissed.
,Y
By this Petition, the Appellant sought an
and
injunction direction that Arbitration
'deferred
proceedings be pending
ad.judication SLp
of
Nos,/
13102-13107 of tdgA and SLp Nos. 4e33-4a4zne bv
Supreme
the CourL.
The
facts briefly stated are
as followsr
Between an
the parties there is
afbitraLion before an Question
Arbitral Tribunal.
is whether the cess amount Respondent
paid by the is
reimbursable made
by the Appellant. The levy was
the Bengal Cess 1880 Cess
under Act, and the Orissa
Act, 1962. The Supreme judgment
Court in a reported
AIR 1990 SC
in pg 88 and AfR L99t S.C. ps t676 held
such Cess
that levy of. was unconstit.utional and
outside t.he legislative competence Stat.e
of a
problem
Legislature. To overcome the
of refund of
cess collected, Cess and other Taxes
on Minerals
fr.
2000:DHC:6186-DB
Sr. Orders
No.
qstzooo.l
os)
ff"of
2
a\
vl
(validation) Rct
tg92 was
,
enacted. Thereafter, 4
the case of KannadasAn v. State of Tamil' ru"d,(
.reported 256C
in AIR 1996 S. C. Supreme court
, the
has upheld the Validation Act ind validat,ed the
taxes and cess
already collected and Lhat
also held
the said Act
payable
|? but"
empowered recovery of taxes cess
and
not recovered before 4-4-t99L. The
Judgment i{i
referred to
Kannadasan's been
cas€' has however
.pending
a larger Bench
and is
before the Supreme Court. However r
ad.judioation
no
th.ere is
st.ay of the Judgnient Kannadasan'B
in
case,
AppellanL
applied to the Arbitrators
Il"
for adjournment pr,oceedings ground
of the on the
Lnrt Lhe matters are pending Supreme
before the
court. The
Arbitrators r vide erder dated 29,L.L999
ga0e
time till Mayn Supremd
|g9g, to obtain from the
Court a date
of hearing. fhe Orler dated 29.L.t9999
was assailed. This
Petition under SecLion 9 of the
was The
said Act filed. learned Single Judge has
taken a view that as no
there is stay of Judgment in
Kannadasan's case, mere pendency no
of the SLp ls
ground for s.tay
l.le are
of ArbiLration Rro;eedings.
in agreement i,Je .reasons
with this view. thus see no
rt
\>
'3
to int,erfere with the [,te,
impugned order.
dismiss'the Appeal.
!n::"t"t"., .
,
z/ooooo /4o4
R/vD//o
n6tPR 57/ac,o/Sl
-
2000:DHC:6186-DB
Orders
os
) 45/2c'e,0.
lfao(
3
AppelIanL
Ws. however, clarify that the
Tribunal
is at liberty to apply bbfore the Arbitral
ad.journment on ground Lhat Lhe Supreme
the
fot
has SLPs observation
Court fixed the on rs-r-|ooo.
Judge and by us not
made by the leained Single t^ril]
acbount by.
be taken into the Arbit,ral fribunal . If
made be
such, an Application is the Respondent wilII
free to take aII such co'ntentions as are available
The undoubtedly on
to them. Tribunal witl dec'ide
such be
merits. whother an application should
granted
or not.
CMNa.-SJQ
-LZP.PP.
Si nce
CM
the does not
the AppeaI has been dismissedo
survive
CWTEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 2OOO CYRIAC JOSEPH,
15, J.
vsp
R/vD//o /eo*
nGtPR 57/ttct/33 ldoooo
-
Sbcci
foCgr.-14r; Oonhrdoo
$r.
Singhvi Sr Adv with
Presenl: Dr. A. H.
Mr Tyagi
. Punit D. for tho Appellant
Mr - S Chandiok Adv
. .4. . Sr with
Ms
Mr, Sanjiv Grover and Jyoti
Respondent.
Mendiratta for the
L5-2-
g.U:5g-91?g*oj.
co ndo nat, io n )
[f or
$
condoned
Delay
FAo(.p-s-).-aL-/2999El-g.t-,r-5p.-8.J2.9*o...g..-
daLed
This Appeal is against an Order
t7
.Lt.L999 by whioh a Petition under Sectlon 9 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act Lgg6
n
(
AcL
hereinafter called the said by the
) fited
Appellant herein has been dismissed.
,Y
By this Petition, the Appellant sought an
and
injunction direction that Arbitration
'deferred
proceedings be pending
ad.judication SLp
of
Nos,/
13102-13107 of tdgA and SLp Nos. 4e33-4a4zne bv
Supreme
the CourL.
The
facts briefly stated are
as followsr
Between an
the parties there is
afbitraLion before an Question
Arbitral Tribunal.
is whether the cess amount Respondent
paid by the is
reimbursable made
by the Appellant. The levy was
the Bengal Cess 1880 Cess
under Act, and the Orissa
Act, 1962. The Supreme judgment
Court in a reported
AIR 1990 SC
in pg 88 and AfR L99t S.C. ps t676 held
such Cess
that levy of. was unconstit.utional and
outside t.he legislative competence Stat.e
of a
problem
Legislature. To overcome the
of refund of
cess collected, Cess and other Taxes
on Minerals
fr.
2000:DHC:6186-DB
Sr. Orders
No.
qstzooo.l
os)
ff"of
2
a\
vl
(validation) Rct
tg92 was
,
enacted. Thereafter, 4
the case of KannadasAn v. State of Tamil' ru"d,(
.reported 256C
in AIR 1996 S. C. Supreme court
, the
has upheld the Validation Act ind validat,ed the
taxes and cess
already collected and Lhat
also held
the said Act
payable
|? but"
empowered recovery of taxes cess
and
not recovered before 4-4-t99L. The
Judgment i{i
referred to
Kannadasan's been
cas€' has however
.pending
a larger Bench
and is
before the Supreme Court. However r
ad.judioation
no
th.ere is
st.ay of the Judgnient Kannadasan'B
in
case,
AppellanL
applied to the Arbitrators
Il"
for adjournment pr,oceedings ground
of the on the
Lnrt Lhe matters are pending Supreme
before the
court. The
Arbitrators r vide erder dated 29,L.L999
ga0e
time till Mayn Supremd
|g9g, to obtain from the
Court a date
of hearing. fhe Orler dated 29.L.t9999
was assailed. This
Petition under SecLion 9 of the
was The
said Act filed. learned Single Judge has
taken a view that as no
there is stay of Judgment in
Kannadasan's case, mere pendency no
of the SLp ls
ground for s.tay
l.le are
of ArbiLration Rro;eedings.
in agreement i,Je .reasons
with this view. thus see no
rt
\>
'3
to int,erfere with the [,te,
impugned order.
dismiss'the Appeal.
!n::"t"t"., .
,
z/ooooo /4o4
R/vD//o
n6tPR 57/ac,o/Sl
-
2000:DHC:6186-DB
Orders
os
) 45/2c'e,0.
lfao(
3
AppelIanL
Ws. however, clarify that the
Tribunal
is at liberty to apply bbfore the Arbitral
ad.journment on ground Lhat Lhe Supreme
the
fot
has SLPs observation
Court fixed the on rs-r-|ooo.
Judge and by us not
made by the leained Single t^ril]
acbount by.
be taken into the Arbit,ral fribunal . If
made be
such, an Application is the Respondent wilII
free to take aII such co'ntentions as are available
The undoubtedly on
to them. Tribunal witl dec'ide
such be
merits. whother an application should
granted
or not.
CMNa.-SJQ
-LZP.PP.
Si nce
CM
the does not
the AppeaI has been dismissedo
survive
CWTEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 2OOO CYRIAC JOSEPH,
15, J.
vsp
R/vD//o /eo*
nGtPR 57/ttct/33 ldoooo
-