MAKHAN LAL LODH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Makhan Lal Lodh of Agartala entered into a contract with the Union of India for construction of barracks meant for bachelor officers at Agartala sometime in the year 1961 -62. The formal agreement executed between the parties contained an arbitration clause providing that in case of any dispute between the parties the matter shall be referred for arbitration to the Administrator of Tripura. It was also provided in that clause that if for any reason the Administrator found any difficulty to do the arbitration himself he could appoint some one else as an arbitrator. On 12th September, 1966, the contractor petitioned the Administrator "to arbitrate or kindly appoint some other person for the purpose", and mentioned in his petition the various heads of dispute which had cropped up between the parties. By an order dated 21 -11 -1966 the Administrator appointed Shri A.K. Dasgupta, Superintendent Engineer, Additional Circle, Agartala as sole arbitrator "for the purpose of making the award on the points of disputes referred to in the above petition". It was on 20th January, 1967, that Shri A.K. Dasgupta called upon the parties to submit statements of facts relating to the disputes between the parties. After receiving the statements of facts from the parties Shri A.K. Dasgupta heard the parties and gave his award which he happened to sign on 18 -5 -1967. The award was to the effect that it was the contractor who had to pay Rs. 10,093.06 to the Union of India. The arbitrator communicated the fact of his having signed the award to the parries and also sent to them each a copy of the award.

(2.) IT appears that some officer of the Government wrote to the arbitrator on 12 -9 -1967 requesting the latter to file the award in Court so that a decree in terms thereof may be made in favour of the Government against the contractor. The arbitrator consequently moved the Court on 16 -9 -1967 but he produced the award in original before that Court on 15 -1 -1968. The Court apprised the parties that the arbitrator had filed the award in Court and called upon them to put in their objections, if any. The contractor filed objections challenging the validity of the award and contending that no decree in terms thereof could be made against him in favour of the Union of India. The Court on rejecting the objections filed by the contractor made an order on 21 -2 -69 making the award a rule of the Court and passing a decree in terms thereof. The present appeal by the contractor is directed against that order of the Court.

(3.) THE Advocate General did not dispute the point of fact that the arbitrator did not forward to the Court the records of arbitration proceedings along with the award. On the authority of sub -section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, Shri Deb urged that the Court could not have taken note of the award submitted by the arbitrator or to pass any judgment on the basis thereof for the reason of' non -submission of records to it by the arbitrator. Sub -section (2) of Section 14 provides that the arbitrators or umpire shall at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. Indisputably sub -section (2) enjoins upon the arbitrator to send to the Court the "depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before him along with the award. However, the section does not proceed to state further that if such depositions and documents are not forwarded to the Court along with the award, the award would lose validity or the Court would have no jurisdiction to adjudge claim based on the award. Indeed such a provision could not have been incorporated in section 14 for any lapse on the part of an arbitrator in the matter of despatch of depositions and documents to the Court along with the award cannot retrospectively have the effect of depriving the award of its validity, if it was otherwise valid by the time it was singed. The validity or otherwise of the award will have to be determined on the basis of factors and circumstances preceding the signing of the award rather than what follows that event. If, as in the present case, the arbitrator omits to send the depositions and documents to the Court along with the award it would at the best be a case of an inconsequential omission on the part of the arbitrator and such an omission can always be got over by the Court directing the arbitrator to produce the depositions and the documents either at the instance of the parties or even suo motu. Therefore, I see no merit in the first point canvassed by Shri Deb.