KARODI SHAH KHOLI Vs. SHUKRA DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal against the Judgment dated 27.2.1993 of 3rd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. By this judgment, the objections u/s 30 of Arbitration Act tiled by the appellant Kartodi Shah Kohli against Award dated 9.4.1985 given by two arbitrators Bakhatmal Sethi (now deceased) and Manoharlal Sahni (respondent No. 2) in a reference made by the two parties to them in writing, were dismissed. The award had allowed Rs. 19,760/ - as payable by Karodi Shah Kohli (appellant) to Shukra Datta Anand (respondent No. 1). On the award, there were signatures of appellant Karodi Shah Kohli under endorsement that he had read the award and received its copy in token of acceptance. S.D. Anand also singed below it. A cheque for Rs. 19, 760/ - dated 30.4.1985 bearing No. 309530 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bhailipur, issued by the Appellant Karodi Shah Kohli, had been received by Shukra Datta Anand (respondent No. 1) on the same date and a receipt of the same was recorded on the face of the award, also under the signature of Shukra Datta Anand.

(2.) THE petitioner u/s 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 had been filed by Shukra Datt Anand (respondent No. 1) for getting the award filed from Arbitrators and for making it rule of the Court. The award was filed by arbitrators on 3rd Sept, 1985. There was no recorded proceedings of arbitration prepared by the arbitrators. So no such proceedings had been filed. The hearings of the parties by the arbitrators were done orally. Notice of the filing of the award had been given to the parties and objections to the award were filed by appellant Karodi Shah Kohli on 20 1.1986. The objections were to the effect that the dispute had arisen out of a transaction which was not legal and could not have been referred to arbitrators, that the arbitrators failed to appoint an umpire within the stipulated period and had commenced proceedings without appointing umpire and so the proceedings are vitiated ab initio: that the petitioner namely S.D. Anand had procured this award and the arbitrators realising the fault set aside the award and further that the award was bad otherwise.

(3.) THE claimant S.D. Anand controverted all these pleas of the objector and urged that both the arbitrators had given a joint award which was accepted by the objector and he singed the award in token of its acceptance, even a cheque for the amount awarded was given by objector to him. As regards the resignation by Manoharlal Sahni arbitrator, it was asserted that although such a letter was given by Manoharlal Sahni both the parties approached him on the same day and requested him to act as arbitrator alongwith Bakhatmal Sethi in the interest of both the panics and so Manoharlal Sahni agreed and acted as arbitrator jointly with Bakhatmal Sethi and both the parties had placed their case and the accounts before the arbitrators who took a decision on under standing the claims of both sides and after going through the accounts and after hearing them. It was denied that there was any illegality in the transaction out of which dispute arose between the parties. It was asserted that there was no need to appoint an umpire as no difference had arisen between the arbitrators and only in case of difference between them, there was need to appoint an umpire. In any case, a joint award given by arbitrators cannot be said to be unlawful, merely because, an umpire had not been appointed by them. As regards cancellation of the award by the arbitrators the assertion is that the arbitrators had become functus officio after delivery of the award and so they could not cancel the award. Their act of canceling the award on 11.06.1986 was illegal and ineffective. The objection was urged to be time barred, in any case the objections raised by amendment were barred by time and it was asserted that those objections, in no case, could be permitted to be raised. The allegations of bias of Manoharlal Sahni against the objection No. 1 was totally refuted. The allegations raised on merits of claims of the parties were also denied. The allegations of misconduct of proceedings were also denied. It was asserted that the resignation letter of Manohalal Sahni had not been received by this claimant.