ROSHAN LAL KUTHIALA Vs. RADHA KRISHNA KUTHALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal purporting to be under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and also S. 10 of the Delhi High Court Act.

(2.) IN 1960, the appellant and the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 entered into an agreement with the Himachal Pradesh. Government to take on lease certain forests. The agreement provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute or difference between the parties. A dispute did arise, and it was referred to an Arbitrator, Shri H. S. Pathania. Both the parties appeared before the Arbitrator and participated in the arbitration proceedings. On December 20, 1970, the Arbitrator made an award in favour of the lessees. It seems that on December 22. 1970 the Arbitrator personally appeared before the High Court and filed his award. On the same date, copies of the award were given to the lessees as well as to counsel for the Union of INdia, who was representing the interests of the Himachal Pradesh Government.

(3.) THE case came on before D. B. Lal, J., and he held that as the Arbitrator had filed the award in Court without the request of either party in that behalf and without any direction from the Court, the filing of the award was not in accordance with Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act and, therefore, could not be recognised or taken notice of by the Court and no proceeding could be taken on it under Section 17 of the Act. It was also urged before him by the lessors that as the application under Section 14 of the Act has been filed on January 8, 1971 it was barred by time by reason of Article 119 (a) of the Limitation Act. THE learned Judge repelled the contention holding that having regard to the prayer set out in it the application must be treated as one under Sec. 17 and not one under Section 14. It was only if the petition was treated as one under Section 14 that it could be considered to be barred by time. Proceeding on the view that the filing of the award was not in accordance with S. 14 (2), he declined to recognise that it was filed in court, and therefore he did not consider it necessary to enter into the objections preferred by the lessors under Ss. 30 and 33, and to decide whether judgment should be pronounced and a decree made under Section 17 in terms of the award. Accordingly, he dismissed the application dated January 8. 1971 and directed that the award and the connected papers be consigned to the record. THE present appeal is directed against that order.