BASAPPA VEERAPPA KARNI Vs. CHANABASAPPA SHIDAPPA ANGADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner and Respondent who were running a business in partnership referred the dispute which arose between them in regard to the dissolution of the firm to five arbitrators for arbitration. THE latter made an award according to which Respondent was to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 7200/- in two instalments and also an additional amount of Rs. 300/- in two instalments and also an additional amount of Rs. 300/-. THE award signed by the arbitrators was given to the Respondent. THE Respondent failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the award. THE Petitioner thereupon filed a petition before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gokak, purporting to be under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for a judgment and decree in accordance with the award. In that petition, he made an explicit statement to the effect that he was enforcing the award in his individual capacity and that he was not filing it as the agent of the arbitrators. THE Respondent raised various objections in regard to the agreement of reference, the proceedings before the arbitrators and the award itself. He also questioned the maintainability of the application on the ground that it was not filed by a competent person. THE question of maintainability and that of limitation were considered as preliminary issues. THE learned Civil Judge held that the application was not maintainable since under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act it was only the arbitrators or umpire that are competent to cause the award to be filed either at the request of a party or any person claiming under such party or any person claiming under such party or by the direction of the Court. He came to that conclusion after examining the whole scheme of the Act. He rejected the contention of the petitioner that it was open to the contention of the petitioner that it was open to the latter to apply for the enforcement of the award independently of the provision of the Act as also the contention that an application could be filed under Section 17 of the Act without reference to the provisions of Section 14. This decision is challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the Petitioner has mainly relied upon two decisions, viz., those in Jai Kishen v. Ram Lal Gupta, AIR 1944 Lah 398, and Radha Kishen v. Madho Krishna, AIR1952 All 856 . In the former case, as in the case on hand, an application was filed by one of the parties for the enforcement of the award. THE opposites party objected that the application was barred under Art. 178 of the Limitation Act. THE Court before which the matter came in the first instance upheld this objection. In revision, the High Court held that Art. 18 did not apply to the application in question as it was not one for the filing of an award but an application for enforcing an award filed along with the application. That was are also observations in support of the present Petitioner's contention. THEy are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to R. 373 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. This is one of the rules framed under Section 44 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It reads: