UNION OF INDIA Vs. K L BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . J. (ORAL).

(2.) THIS first appeal from order has been filed under Sec. 39(l)(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of Mr. D. R. Khanna, then Sub-Judge, I Class, dated 29th May, 1964, by which he set aside the award of the Arbitrator dated 26th May, 1962. mainly on the ground that it had been made beyond the time allowed by the court under section 16 of the Act and was, therefore, void.

(3.) IN the end, Mr. Tandon made a feeble attempt to urge that the previous order of Mr. Aggarwala Sub-Judge, may be construed as an order setting aside the award and remitting the dispute to the aribitrator for re-determination, since the arbitration agreement had not been superseded by exercise of power under section 19 of the Act and he has relied upon Prabhat Kumar v. Jagdish Chandra Narang, AIR 1968 Pat 399(10). I am unable to accept the submission. Firstly, this had not been raised in the court below; secondly the arbitration agreement is not before the court from which it could be deduced as to whether in an arbitration to which the Government is a party the power of the court to supersede the reference is or is not excluded and whether any machinery is provided for redetermination of the dispute after the setting aside of the award. The case of Prabhat Kumar (supra) was an arbitration between private parties and the High Court found as a fact that the lower appellate court had not superseded the reference, but continued the reference by sending the matter back to the arbitrator after setting aside the award and so the appeal was maintainable. This is not the position in the instant case and there is no doubt about the maintainability of the present appeal. It may be significant to notice that in Patna judgment reference is made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Juggilal v. General Fibre Dealers Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 1123(11), where the following observations occur: