HARI KRISHNA WATTAL Vs. VAIKUNTH NATH PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court at Allahabad dated December 7, 1966, by which the Court, in agreement with the trial court, superseded a Reference to Arbitration.

(2.) HARI Krishna Wattal and Vaikunth Nath Pandya carried on business in partnership under the name and style of 'Wattal and Co.'. Differences having arisen between them, a reference was made to the Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement under the partnership deed. The Arbitrator, Shri Bagchi, Advocate, gave an award and HARI Krishna Wattal applied under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for filing of the award and for making it a rule of the Court. Objections were filed by Vaikunth Nath Pandya. The award was challenged on several grounds. The Court of the first instance held inter alia that the award dated February 27, 1959 was invalid on the ground, firstly, that the award had been passed after the prescribed period for making the award and secondly that the reference agreement was defective on account of vagueness and uncertainty. HARI Krishna Wattal filed an appeal in the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the trial court on the two above grounds and superseded the reference.

(3.) EX. 13 is the agreement to refer the disputes between the parties. The agreement is dated 5-2-1958 and the award, as already stated, was made much beyond four months from the date of the reference. Prima facie it will be invalid unless the time for enlargement of the award was legally extended. It is contended for the appellant that the time had been legally extended by the mutual written consent of the parties and hence the award was not liable to be set aside. It will appear from the record that the time was extended not less than six times. The first extension was from 31-5-1958 to 31-7-1958 and the last extension was from 29-1-1959 to 28-2-1959. None of these six extensions was for the benefit of the appellant. Five extensions were given for the convenience of the respondents and one for the convenience of the Arbitrator. On each occasion however, the appellant and the respondents had mutually agreed to the extension in writing. The agreement for enlargement of time was generally in the following terms :