RAMAUTAR SAH Vs. VIDYA SAGAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendants first party is challenging the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge remitting back an award to the arbitrators to decide the extent of debt payable by their erstwhile firm. The question urged for consideration is that the order remitting back the award is wholly without jurisdiction and the Court below should have decided the question itself. The relevant facts are as follows:--

(2.) SOME dispute arose between the partners co-owners of a rice mill known as Jai Hind Rice Mills, who decided to get the same settled by arbitration out of court. When the arbitrators gave their award, an application was made by the plaintiff-opposite party under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for making the same a rule of the court. The trial Court by its judgment dated 25th April, 1957. refused to pass a decree in terms of the award. The plaintiff thereafter preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 230 of 1967 in this Court, which was allowed and by its order dated 13th July. 1961, it was directed to pass a decree in terms of the award dated 13th January, 1954. When execution was levied of this decree, a dispute was raised by the present petitioners that the decree was not executable, The Executing Court decided the issue in favour of the opposite party and the petitioners came to this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No, 36 of 1987.

(3.) IN pursuance of the above findings and directions of this Court, the Court below proceeded to take evidence in the matter in order to determine the amount of debt payable by the Rice Mills. But later on, by the impugned order, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge took a view that the award given by the arbitrators which was made a rule of the Court, as stated earlier was in the nature of an interim award within the meaning of Section 27 of the Arbitration Act and, therefore, in pursuance of the powers conferred under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, he had the necessary power to remit the award to the arbitrators for a reconsideration as to whether it was indefinite and incapable of execution within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 16 (1) aforesaid.