SURJIT SINGH Vs. TARLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. The lis: Could a later arbitral award be made rule of Court under Arbitration Act, 1940, if the earlier award had remained without Court's imprimatur

(2.) The revision is against the order of the Appellate Court setting aside the order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana. The Court of First Instance entertained a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 directing the Arbitrator to file an award dated 02.08.1983 regarding two properties which were house and industrial plot with business carried at the industrial plot but dismissed the petition. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted a judgment in terms of the award.

(3.) The petition had been filed in a case where the Arbitrator was deciding the dispute with reference to the properties belonging to the parties. When notice of the petition had been served, the petitioner before this Court and Surjit Singh, Sewa Singh and Chetan Singh, who were respondent Nos.2 to 4, filed objections under Sec. 30 read with Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act pleading that the Arbitrator, after his appointment, had given his award on 13.08.1982 which was accepted by all the parties had become functus officio. He could not, therefore, amend his award and give any other award and he had no authority to give an award on 02.08.1983. There could be, therefore, no justification for the Court to pass a decree in terms of the said award. It was stated in objection that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in the proceedings and had given subsequent award without any jurisdiction. The subsequent award was, therefore, vitiated by fraud and illegality and inoperative. It was also stated by them in their objections that there had been a suit instituted by Tarlok Singh and Sewa Singh against PSEB as well as the objectors. That suit was allowed to be withdrawn when the applicants made a statement before Court that the parties would be bound by the terms of the award dated 13.08.1982. II. Award not made rule of Court is still not a waste paper; it will operate as estoppel, the basis for objection before Courts below