U P JAL NIGAM Vs. SONIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge Kanpur making an award given upon a reference made at the instance of the parties a rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. After the award was filed in the Court the opposite party made an application dated 31-1-1984 under section 14/17 of the Arbitration Act for the award being made a rule of the Court. Several objections were filed by the applicant against the aforesaid application but it is not necessary to elaborate all of them in view of the fact that the ? learned counsel has confined his submissions to only two objections in this Court. The objection urged by the learned counsel is two folds : First, that the award was not filed strictly in the manner prescribed under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act; second, that the Arbitrator had made the award after the period fixed for the same had expired.

(2.) I shall take up the first objection first. The contention of the learned counsel was that Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act contemplates that the award should be filed either by the Arbitrator himself or by a party authorised by him in that behalf. In the present case neither of these two procedures was followed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the case of the opposite party was that the Arbitrator had authorised Sri K. C. Sinha, an Assistant Engineer in the PWD to file the award in the court. But, it was urged, K. C. Sinha has denied this allegation in the affidavit filed in the Court below. In my opinion, the question whether the Arbitrator had authorised Sri K. C. Sinha to file the award or not or whether the arbitrator had caused the award to be filed in the Court on his own is a question of fact which cannot be allowed to be raised in a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is sufficient that the court below has accepted the position that the award was filed on 14-3-1984 along with a covering letter of the Arbitrator. For the purpose of the proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act this was enough compliance. See the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1976 Cal 291 Federal Republic of Germany v. S. Dey and Associates.