Find a Lawyer

First Appeal No. 65 of 1953, decided on 7th February 1957, (with cross‑objection) against the decree of V. Hussain, Dist rict judge, Dacca.

Appeal against award of arbitrator fixing monthly compensation at Rs. 150 ‑Whether lies to High Court.

Under section 7 of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisi tion of Property Act, 1948 read with rule 9 (16) of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Rules, 1948 the appeal against the award of arbitrator fixing the monthly compensation at Rs.150 per month, to the High Court is incom petent.

Taziruddin Ahmed with Moinul Huq for Appellant.

A. B. Mahmud Hussain, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent.

In this appeal, we are invited to set aside a decision of the District Judge of Dacca who passed the order, dated the 5th of December 1952, as an Arbitrator appointed by the Government of East Pakistan, and made his award.

The award in question is one of Rs. 150 given as monthly compensation for the requisitioned portion of the premises at 15, Purana Paltan Road. The Memorandum of Appeal has been valued by the appellant at Rs. 6,225. A cross‑objection has also been filed by the Government of East Pakistan which is valued at Rs. 150‑50=Rs. 100.

In view of the preliminary point which we are going to dispose of presently, it is not necessary to state the facts of the case.

When Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed opened the appeal on behalf of the appellant, we asked him to satisfy us as to whe ther an appeal, against the order of the Arbitrator complained of, lies to this Court. The learned Advcate for the appellant relied on section 7 (ii) (f) of the East' Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 (East Bengal Act XIII of 1948), which runs as follows :‑

"An appeal shall lie to the High Court against an award of an arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount specified in this behalf by rule made by the Provincial Government."

When the above section was pointed out to us, we referred to sub‑rule (16) of rule 9 of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requi sition of Property Rules, 1948, which is to the following effect :‑

Any appeal against the award of the Arbitrator shall be preferred within six weeks of the receipt by the parties of the notice referred to in sub‑rule (14)

Provided that no appeal shall be against an award made under these rules where the amount of compensation awarded does not exceed Rs. 5,000 in lump or Rs. 250 per mensem."

Although the appeal has been valued at Rs. 6,225, it is con ceded that the appeal is in respect of the order fixing the monthly compensation at Rs. 150 per month and, therefore, it falls far short of the amount mentioned in the above Rule 9 (16). So, according to section 7 of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 (mast Bengal Act XI1I of 1948), read with Rule 9 (16) of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Rules, 1948, and as also conceded by the learned Advocate for the appellant, the appeal in respect of the award of Rs. 150 per month is incompetent. We, there fore, dismiss this appeal.

As to the cross‑objection, Mr. Hussain, who appears for the Government of East Pakistan. does nor press it. 5o, the cross‑objection is also dismissed.

We, however, award no costs either in respect of the appeal or the cross‑objection.

‑I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.