STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SISIR KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Baripada making the award dated 16 -1 -1979 a rule of the Court and directed a decree to be drawn up in accordance with the terms thereof.

(2.) THREE objections were raised viz. (i) the award was delivered beyond the time limited by the Court and as such was vitiated, (ii) the Arbitrator took into consideration certain works which was not covered by the contract and the grant of compensation on such account was without jurisdiction and (iii) the Government pleader appearing for the Appellant before the Arbitrator wanted time to argue on certain questions of law but the Arbitrator without giving him an opportunity of being heard, concluded the matter.

(3.) RULE 3 of the First Schedule of the Act prescribes that the Arbitrator is to make his award within four months after entering into the reference. Section 28 of the Act authorises extension from time to time. In the case of Hari Shankar Lal v. Sambhunatk : : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 78, the Court pointed out that expiry of period of four months does not have the effect of rendering the Arbitrator functus officio. There is an order by the Arbitrator which clearly shows that both sides agreed to extension of time. In token of this, the signatures have been obtained in the order sheet of the Arbitration proceeding. This Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra v. Artatrana : : A.I.R. 1965 Ori 17, has taken the view that in such circumstances estoppel sets in and the party who continued to appear before the Arbitrator after the expiry of time set for making the Award would not be entitled to dispute the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has made the award beyond time. To the same effect is Fun Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Bakaro and Ramgur Ltd. v. Dr. Prasan Kumar Banerjee : : A.I.R. 1968 Pat. 150. The ratio of a later Supreme Court decision in the case of Hari Kishen Wattal v. Vaikunth Nath Pandey : : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2479 also supports the same position. I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned Standing Counsel that the award is vitiated on account having been made after lapse of time.