GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE Vs. JAGMONAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) --

(2.) REGULAR First Appeal No. 110 of 1967 is an appeal by the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Delhi (defendant No. 23 in the suit and hereinafter called "the GPC') and REGULAR First Appeal No. 111 of 1967 is by Jathedar Santokh Singh (defendant No. 19) against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, granting a declaration that the award made by the 1st defendant (Bakhshi Gurcharan Singh) on 29th April 1968 as well as the reference to arbitration were invalid and inoperative. The Additional District Judge did not grant the other declaration prayed for that the committee constituted previously to the award (consisting of defendants 1 to 6, 22, 24 to 28 and original plantiffs I to 3) in September 1961 was entitled to carry on. As against the refusal there has been no appeal or cross-appeal. FAO, No. 98 of 1967 is by Dan Singh (defendant No. 11 in the suit) and FAO No. 99 of 1967 is by the GPC and Jathedar Santokh Singh. Both the FAOs are against the order of the Additional District Judge holding, in the proceedings before him under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (which will hereinafter for purpose of convenient reference be called "the arbitration proceedings"), that the above said reference to arbitration and the award by the 1st defendant Bakhshi Gurcharan Singh) were invalid and consequently setting aside the award.

(3.) ON the merits, the suit was contested and the award was objected to, broadly speaking, on the ground that both the reference to arbitration and the award, were invalid. The validity of the reference was mainly attacked on the necessary interested parties viz., the Shiromani Committee and Kuldip Singh not actually joining or being parties to the references. The award was said to be illegal not only on the ground of the reference itself being invalid but also on the ground that the arbitrator, who had gone to the length of nominating himself to the committee, had been permitted to decide and had decided the disputes in a manner not warranted by and even opposed to the constitution of the GPC. This objection was sought to be met on a twofold basis: (1) that Bakhshi Gurcharan Sinh was not an arbitrator but only a referee and (2) that he had not altered any rule but had only used the power of relaxation of rules given by the constitution of the GPC itself to nominate a committee.