B M ADVANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT:

(2.) THIS suit is in the form of a petition under S. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. An award was filed along with this petition. The facts of the case are set out in the application. Previously, there was an award dated 30th Oct. 1971, which was considered by this Court in Suit No. 446/71. Objections to that award were filed by the present petitioner. They were decided by B. C. Misra J. as per judgment dated 14th Dec. 1975. The award was upheld on all points except on issue No. 2. Acting under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award was remitted back by the Court for a decision on Issue No. 2. THIS issue was regarding some additional amount to be paid to the contractor on account of evaluation. The facts are set out in detail in the aforementioned judgment delivered by B. C. Misra, J. which I have before me. It was held by the arbitrator in the first award that the additional amount was not payable because the additional amount had been promised to the contractor without any consideration. THIS was held to be an error of law and hence the award was remitted back only on this point. Now an award has come allowing an additional amount to the contractor on account of de-valuation payment. In addition to the present award, the previous award is also sought to be made a rule of the Court. In short, the petitioner prays that both the awards be made a rule of the Court.

(3.) IN the judgment of Bachawat, J. delivered in the Calcutta case I have just referred to a reference was made to the cases of Johnson v. Latham, (1851) 20 LJQB 236 and Bearcy v. Kemp, (1855) 24 LJQB 310, which are stated to be as the leading eases on what happens when the whole award is remitted back or a portion of the award is remitted back. It was held in Bearcy v. Kemp, (1855) 24 LJQB 310 that the second award is the effective award if the whole matter is remitted back. None of these cases appears to say what has to happen when a part of the award is remitted back and comes after decision. Does the Court have to draw up a consolidated award ?