SULEMAN AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE sewerage work: in Sector 'C' of GreenFields Colony, Faridabad (Haryana) was awarded by the respondent/to the petitioner. Disputes and differences between the parties were objectorreferred to the sole arbitration of Brig. Harish Chandra (Retired) inaccordance with the arbitration agreement. THE arbitrator has filed theaward and the proceedings in this Court THE respondent has challenged thevalidity of award and has filed objections thereto (I.A.766/88). On pleadingsof the parlies, following issues are framed :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance onHarbhajan Singh and others v. Meva Singh and others, AIR 1928 Lahore 753,Parshottamdas Narottamdas Patel and others v. Kekhushru Bapuji and others,AIR 1934 Bombay 6, Chatti Lal v. Ram Chanter Sahu and others, AIR 19' IPatna 215, Banwari Lal Garodia v. Joylal Hargulal. AIR 1956 Calcutta 467and R. Dasratha Rao and others v. K. Ramaswamy Iyenger and others, AIR1956 Madras 134 holding that the arbitrators cannot be deemed to havebecome functus officio with regard to carrying out of ministerial acts such asengrossing of the award on stamp paper. In view of judgment of SupremeCourt in Rikhabdass case it is not necessary to elaborately deal with theaforesaid cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner but I may noticethat the aforesaid cases proceeded on their peculiar facts. In Calcutta casethe award was dated 31/03/1954 but the stamp paper on which theaward was written had been purchased on 1/04/1954. On these facts,P.B. Mukharji, J. came to the conclusion that the error was not such as canat all make the award had and illegal and noticed that the arbitrator mayhave dictated the award on 31/03/1954 to a stenographer and thestenographer might have finally transcribed it on a stamp paper on thefollowing day, 1/04/1954. In Madras case reliance was placed on judgments of Bombay and Patna High Courts. The judgment of the MadrasHigh Court in R Dasartha Rao's case was considered by the Andhra PradeshHigh Court in Ariyur Mohammad Habeer Rahman and others v. AnsuriVaramma (died) and another, 1974 Andhra Pradesh 113 and it was held thatthe decision of the Madras High Court runs contrary to the decision of theSupreme Court in AIR 1962 S.C. 551 and it cannot therefore, be said thatthe decision in AIR 1956 Madras 134 lays down good law. A division Benchof Calcutta High Court in Nalini RanJan Guha v. Union of India, AIR 1958Calcutta 624 expressed doubts about the correctness of law laid down byLahore High Court in Harbhajan Singh's case and also noticed that judgmentof Lahore High Court was based on admission of the parties.