BALAJI LAMINATING WORKS Vs. J R MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order KI propose to dispose of this Suit No. 1484A of 1985 and I.A. No. 5678 of 1985 filed by the plaintiff for modification of award of the arbitrator so as to grant interest till the date of payment of decretal amount as also I.A. No. 6404 of 1985 filed by defendant No. 2 which is in the nature of objections to the award filed in the above mentioned suit.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this order are M/s. Balaji Laminating Works had filed this suit under Section 14 of Indian Arbitration Act with a request that Shri J.R. Malik, arbitrator in the case should be ordered to file his award in the court and in pursuance thereof the award was receiv in court and notice of filing of the award was accepted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and on 6th September, 1985 notice was ordered to be issued to defendant No. 2 which was served on 13th September, 1985. THE plaintiff filed objections in the form of I.A. No. 5678 of 1985 under Section 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act requesting that interest be awarded on the amount given in the award @ 18 per cent per annum till the payment of the entire decretal amount THE defendant No. 2 also filed his objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award which are I.A. No. 6404 of 1985. THE following issues were framed on the objections of defendant No. 2 : Issues : "1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to pass a decree on the basis of the award ? 2. Whether the award dated 17th July, 1985 made by Mr. J.R. Malik, respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside for any of the reasons mentioned in the objection petition ? 3. Relief." In as much as it is an arbitration matter it was ordered that the objections can be decided on affidavits and accordingly the parties were directed to file their affidavits. THEreafter I.A. No. 3063 of 1986 was filed by defendant No 2 under Order 14, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code . requesting therein that Issue No. 1 with regard to jurisdiction of the court should be treated as preliminary. This application was disposed of vide my orders dated llth November, 1986 with the observations that "keeping in view the totality of circumstances, it would be appropriate that the entire matter is heard and if the court would come to the conclusion that this court has no jurisdiction it would automatically stay its hands from proceeding further in the matter" and accordingly arguments were heard but after hearing arguments on the question of jurisdiction no further arguments were thought necessary to be heard. I have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings on Issue No. 1. 250