RAJANNA M Vs. F C I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram in O.P.No.23 of 1983 on his file whereby the learned Judge rejected the objection of the petitioner. The award has been made as a rule of the Court and a decree has been passed accordingly.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a contractor for handling, loading, unloading and transporting food-grains, fertilisers, etc., by the 1st respondent through a written agreement. The 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil his part of the contract and, therefore, the 1st respondent had been put to a loss of Rs.l,47,383.10ps. The petitioner resisted the claim of 1st respondent before the Arbitrator. After investigating into the rival claims, the Arbitrator on 18-6-1983 passed the award and noticed the 1st respondent who received it on 5-7-1983. The 1st respondent on 4-8-1983 filed an application for filing the award into the Court as also for passing the decree in terms of the award.

(3.) The petitioner filed an objection resisting the application of the 1st respondent inter alia on the ground that the 1st petitioner (sic. respondent) through its officers was present at the time of passing of the award on 18-6-1983 and, therefore, it has knowledge about the award. Because the application has been filed on 4-8-1983 much beyond the period of 30 days as provided under Article 119 of the Limitation Act, it is barred by limitation. As per clause (29) of the impugned agreement, the Managing Director of the 1st respondent was bound to appoint another person as an arbitrator because this term says that "on the transfer of the original arbitrator, a new Arbitrator shall be appointed, but, in contravention of this clause, even after the transfer of the person who was originally appointed as an Arbitrator, that is to say, the 2nd respondent, the Managing Director of the 1st respondent did not appoint a new Arbitrator, and, therefore, the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award after his transfer and the award has not been filed as per Rule 24 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders and, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to look into the award".