IDEAL ENTERPRISES Vs. DESU MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application being filed by the appellant under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court of the Additional District Judge directed the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator to settle disputes between the parties within one month and make an award within four months. After the parties had appeared before the Arbitrator and had submitted their claims, the Arbitrator by his order dated 26.7.1988 observed that neither the application moved before the Court nor the order of the Additional District Judge refer to any dispute between the parties, which could be decided by him. The Arbitrator, therefore, directed the appellant to approach the appropriate Court or the authorities concerned as per the arbitration agreement to get the matter referred to arbitration on specific disputes. Respondent was also directed to adopt proper course of action for recovery of its alleged damages, if any. On this order being passed the appellant filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award and to hold that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 34 lakhs 70 thousand from the respondent. It was also alleged that the Court should also clarify the terms of disputes and as to what it contains. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court was of the view that the order passed by the Arbitrator was not an award under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the application, therefore, under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act was not maintainable and the same was, accordingly, dismissed. According to the Trial Court the petitioner should have filed a separate petition either for getting specific disputes referred to the Arbitrator or should have sought clarification about disputes between the parties in the earlier petition in which the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. This order of the Trial Court has now been challenged by the appellant by filing the present appeal.

(2.) I have carefully gone through the order dated 26.7.1988, passed by the Arbitrator and I find that by no stretch of imagination the said order can be said to be an award within the meaning of Arbitration Act, 1940. No dispute between the parties have been adjudicated vipon by the Arbitrator. By the aforesaid order the Arbitrator has taken the view that since specific disputes were not referred to him for adjudication, no award could be made in the matter and he, therefore, directed the parties to seek clarification either from the Court or the authorities concerned about the specific disputes between the parties. Since it was not an award within the meaning of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the application and observing that the proper course open to the appellant was to move appropriate application for reference of disputes to the Arbitrator or to seek clarification by filing a proper application in the petition in which the disputes were referred to the arbitration. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional District Judge which may call for interference by this Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(3.) The appellant will, however, be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Additional District Judge either seeking clarification about the disputes which may have been referred to the Arbitrator or for referring of specific disputes to the arbitration. The Trial Court file be sent back immediately. Appeal dismissed.