JAI GOPAL Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the parties to an arbitration agreement can extend the period for making of the Award, beyond four months by mutual consent. It is conceded on all hands that such a power does not vest in a Court under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 . The following facts have given rise to the above mentioned question.

(2.) Ram Chand (referred to as the first party in these proceedings) purchased plots Nos. 279 and 280 from the Rehabilitation Authorities and similar Jowahar Singh (referred to as the second party in these proceedings) purchased three plots, that is, Nos. 281, 282 and 283 from the said department. The absence of the necessary details with regard to the areas and the boundaries of the said plots gave rise to the various disputes between the parties. It actually led to the launching of security proceedings under Section 107 read with Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code against both of them. It was during the course of these proceedings that better sense prevailed and the parties entered into an agreement (Exhibit P.1) on March 17, 1970 to refer the dispute with regard to the fixation of the actual area and the boundaries of the abovesaid plots to arbitration. This agreement was witnessed by two persons, that is, Ram Chand (P.W. 1) and Kishori Lal (D.W. 1). The agreement provided that eight persons mentioned therein would arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties and they would decide the matter within 160 days from the date of the agreement, unanimously by majority. One of the arbitrators, namely, Mathra Dass was designated as Sarpanch and was given a casting vote in case of a tie. Six Panches out of the eight appointed through the said agreement gave their award on August 28, 1970. It was marked as 'Y' during these proceedings and as the same was on an unstamped paper, it was sent to Collector, Gurgaon after impounding the same for realization of the deficiency and the penalty with regard to stamp duty. The first party paid the deficiency and the penalty in accordance with the assessment made by the Collector. It may be mentioned here that the period of 160 days provided for giving of the award in the agreement dated March 17, 1970, was to expire on August 24, 1970, when on August 22, 1970, the parties to the agreement gave another 60 days to the arbitrators for giving their award. These proceedings were recorded on the back of the arbitration agreement (Exhibit P.1) and have been marked as Exhibit P.2.

(3.) One of the arbitrators, that is, Kesri Mal, made an application on January 13, 1971, for filing the award and for making the same rule of the Court. Notice having been issued to the parties, the second party contested the said petition and raised number of pleas with regard to the locus standi of Kesri Mal to file the application, validity of the award, the same being beyond time and in contravention of the arbitration agreement as also the misconduct of the arbitrators.