UNION OF INDIA Vs. K L BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE appellant and the respondent herein entered into an agreement styled as Contract No. CWE/D-17 of 1955-56 for the improvement to the distribution system of water supply in Delhi Cantonment. This agreement contained an arbitration clause by which disputes arising between the parties to the agreement relating to the subject-matter of the agreement were to be referred to the sole arbitration of the arbitrator named in the said agreement. As a matter of fact, disputes did arise between the parties and, therefore, these disputes were referred without the intervention of the Court to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator named in the agreement. THE arbitrator made his award on 23.10.1958 and filed the same into Court. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to both the parties. Objections were filed by the appellant herein. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to state the nature of the objections raised by the appellant at that stage. After hearing both the parties, the Court remitted the award back to the arbitrator for deciding the matters in dispute between the parties afresh after allowing the parties a reasonable opportunity to adduce whatever evidence they thought proper and necessary in support of their respective claims. THE arbitrator was directed to file his award in Court by 31.8.1960. This time was extended subsequently to 30.11.1960. THE respondent herein thereafter filed an application under sections 11 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the removal of the arbitrator. An ex parte interim injunction order was passed by the Court on 2.12.1960 prohibiting the arbitrator from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings pending the disposal of this application filed by the respondent. Ultimately, this application was dismissed by the Court by its order dated 19th August, 1961 and the interim injunction order vacated. THE arbitrator thereupon proceeded with the arbitration proceedings and ultimately submitted his decision to the Court on 26.5.1962. Notices were again issued to the parties and this time the respondent herein filed objections to the decision filed by the arbitrator. One of the objections was that the arbitrator had not submitted his decision to the Court within the time by the Court and that, therefore, the award of the arbitrator was void on that ground. THEse objections were filed on 9.10.1962. THE appellant filed a reply to these objections on 10-12-1962. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under sections 16 and 28 of the Act on 14.5.1964 praying that under the circumstances, the Court be pleased to extend the time for filing the award by the arbitrator to the date on which the arbitrator actually filed the award. This application was opposed by the respondent. No separate order was, however, passed on the application filed by the appellant under sections 16 and 28 of the Act. But in view of the objections raised by the respondent herein that the award filed by the arbitrator was barred by time, the learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issue:-

(3.) I have, therefore, to hold that the learned Subordinate Judge had the power to consider the question of extending the time for filing the decision of the arbitrator notwithstanding the fact that the decision had been filed after the expiry of the time previously fixed by the court.