UNION OF INDIA Vs. AJIT RAM JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two miscellaneous appeals and one civil revision have been heard together as they arise out of the same matter, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) UNION of India is the appellant in both these appeals and petitioner in the civil revision application. Sri Ajit Ram Jain is the respondent in the two appeals and the opposite party in the civil revision. The said Ajit Ram Jain the respondent had entered into a contract with UNION of India represented through Chief Engineer, Central Range, Nagpur on 11th January, 1971 for construction of some work at Gaya. One of the terms of the contract was that all disputes appertaining to the contract had to be settled by arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters. On completion of the work, the contractor requested the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi to appoint an arbitrator and accordingly Brig. Jagdeo Singh was appointed the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator published his award on 29-1-1977 and a notice thereof was sent by the arbitrator to both the parties of the award. That notice was received by the said contractor Ajit Ram Jain on 1-2-1977. Then the arbitrator filed the award along with the documents as provided under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 in Court which was transmitted by the arbitrator through the Garrison Engineer, Danapur Cant who (the latter) in turn sent a copy of the intimation of filing the award in court to the parties of arbitration by his letter dated 26-2-1977. The contractor, the said Ajit Ram Jain then on 18-4-1977 filed an application under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the Sub-Judge at Gaya for directing the arbitrator to file the award in court and also to make the award the rule of the court. Thereafter the court served a notice upon the parties of the arbitration under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act about the award having been filed, which notice was served on the appellant through the Chief Engineer, Northern Zone, Lucknow representing the UNION of India, on 28-4-1977. But even before that date, i.e. on 23-3-1977, the UNION of India through the Chief Engineer, the appellant, had filed objection under section 30 of the Arbitration Act in court for setting aside the award. This was filed in Title Suit No. 35 of 1977 before the Sub-Judge, which was the case registered on the above-mentioned application of the respondent contractor Ajit Ram Jain filed under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act before the Sub-Judge for directing the arbitrator to file the award in court and to make the same the rule of the Court. The learned Sub-Judge disallowed the objection of the appellant, the UNION of India (filed under section 30 of the Arbitration Act) on the ground that that objection was prematurely filed before the service of the notice under section 14(2) and as such the objection was not entertainable. The learned Sub-Judge by the same order accordingly made the award the rule of the Court and decree was accordingly prepared. It is against that judgment dated 29-3-1978 that the UNION of India has filed the present Miscellaneous Appeal No. 126 of 1978. The said contractor, namely, the respondent has filed a cross-objection in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, the Union of India, has, however, contended that the learned Sub-Judge was wrong in not having entertained the objection filed by the Union of India under section 30 of the said Act on the ground mentioned above and that the concession in this respect said to have been made by the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Union of India could not by itself be sufficient for the learned Sub-Judge to act upon the said concession without examining the correct position of law in this regard. It is contended that the concession made by a counsel on behalf of a party on a point of law has no binding effect and cannot be treated as an estoppel. THEre can be no dispute on this point that the concession of law made by a counsel in a court is not at all binding. This is a settled position of law and this was the view expressed also in a recent Bench decision of this Court in Zakia Afaque Islamia College, Siwan v. Stateof Bihar, 1982 BBCJ (HC) 81 which relevant observation in this regard occurs at the top page 84 of the report. THE impugned judgment of the Sub-Judge does not show that he had by himself examined this poisition of law which is said to have been conceded before him by the Government Pleader. THErefore, it falls upon this Court to examine this position of law.