UNITED TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. KHATOON BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "Act 1940") against the judgment and decree dated 12- 3-1999 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Jagadalpur in Civil Suit No. 4A/1984 whereby application filed by the appellant to set aside the award has been rejected and in term of award judgment and decree impugned has been passed.

(2.) Facts stated in brief are that respondent herein filed an application under Section 20 of the Act 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the arbitral dispute. The application was filed on 6-8-1984. After due hearing First Additional Districl Judge Jagadalpur, vide order dated 11-2-1986 appointed Shri P. C. Jain, Income Tax Practitioner as sole Arbitrator. Pursuant to his appointment, arbitrator proceeded to resolve the arbitral dispute and after due enquiry and hearing, passed an arbitral award and submitted the same to the Court of First Additional District Judge. The Court received it on 3-5-1990, and passed an order on that day that parties be called and notice of filing of award be communicated to them.

(3.) Pursuant to the order dated 3-5-1990 parties gave their appearance through their respective counsels on 4-5-1990. Learned Additional District Judge, Jagadalpur, vide order dated 4-5-1990 gave notice of award to the parties present through their counsel in the Court. Appellants and respondent through their counsel present on that day were served with notice accordingly. Learned Judge however directed all the parties that if they so desire, may file their objection against the award in accordance with law. On 11-6-1990 respondent filed an application stating that she has no objection to the award. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17 of the Act 1940, judgment in term of award be passed. On 18-8-1990 appellants filed an application under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Act 1940 inter alia impeaching the credibility of Arbitrator in conduct of the proceeding, prayed to cancel the award. Respondent vehemently opposed the application and also took a plea that appellant at this stage has no right to challenge the award.