BAI LAXMIBAI Vs. SHRIDHAR MANIK PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to set aside an award made in the matter of partitioning the estate of a joint Hindu family. The petitioner is the widow of a deceased brother of the respondents. The agreement of reference is dated December 5, 1940, and seven persons named in the agreement were appointed arbitrators to make a division of the joint and self-acquired moveable and immoveable properties of the family. The arbitrators made their award on April 30, 1941. It is signed by all the seven arbitrators. The notice of making of the award was given' on October 2, 1941, by the arbitrators' attorneys and this petition was filed on February 20, 1942.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner only three points are pressed in support of the application, The first is that no proper notice of making and signing the award was given. The argument is two-fold : firstly, that notice must have been given on the same day on which the award was made, and, secondly, that the notice given by the attorneys is improper and should have been given by the arbitrators themselves. The petitioner contends that under Section 14(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940) notice must be given on the same day as the award because the section opens with the word, "When". According to the petitioner all the three acts, viz. making of the award, signing the award and giving notice to the parties must be done at the same time. Sub-section (2) of that section is used in contrast to show that when the Legislature intended that an act might be done by another party, e.g. causing the award to be filed, the Legislature had stated so clearly. It is argued that causing the notice to be given by the attorneys amounts to delegation of authority and no arbitrator is entitled to delegate his work. In my opinion this line of reasoning is unsound. I am unable to read the word "When" as meaning what is contended for by the petitioner. The word "When" in Section 14(1) in my opinion has to be read with "have made." It does not control (with the meaning stated to attach thereto) the words "shall give notice." Section 14(2) provides that the arbitrators have to make their award. The time to make their award is controlled by Clause (3) of the first schedule which provides that in the absence of a contract to the. contrary the' arbitrators must make their award within four months from: the date of entering on the reference or within the further extended time as mentioned therein. The signing of the award must follow the making of the award. The provision about giving notice in writing to the parties, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean at the same time or moment. It is true that the arbitrators are expected in the ordinary course to give notice within a reasonable time after the award is made and signed by them; but, I am unable to read Section 14(2) as compelling them to give notice on the same day on which the award is made and signed. By the fourth schedule to the Indian Arbitration Act Articles 158 and 178 of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act are amended. Thereby the time is fixed for filing the award, after the date of the service of the notice of making of the award, and time is also fixed for filing an application to set aside an award after the notice of filing of the award is given to the parties. No time is fixed either by the Indian Arbitration Act or by the Indian Limitation Act within which the arbitrator should give notice of the making and filing of the award. In my opinion that is a deliberate omission and the result is that the arbitrators are left with a free hand on that point. As I have pointed out, it is their duty after they make and sign their award to give notice to the parties within a reasonable time, which must be fixed according to the circumstances of each case.

(3.) THE second part of the petitioner's contention that the arbitrators had delegated their authority has no substance. THE giving of the notice is not exercising any judicial function of an arbitrator]. In the ordinary course a man is entitled to get a thing done which he is himself entitled to do, and' unless the Legislature has limited his power he has authority to delegate the same to an agent as provided by the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is, therefore, for the petitioner to show that this work, which was entrusted to the attorneys, was not permitted in law. THE notice is only to the effect that an award has been made. It is not any decision on any of the disputes referred to the arbitrators. In my opinion it is only a ministerial act which the arbitrators were fully entitled to delegate to their attorneys.