ABDUL SAMAD AND SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had taken certain contract work from the Union of India. It appears that under the terms of agreement between the parties any dispute relating to the contract wasto be referred to an arbitrator. Such a dispute arose and it was referred to Mr. T.H. Dixon, Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Circle, Central Public Works Department, for a decision. The arbitrator delivered the award on 18-2-1954 and signed the same on the same date. The award was filed in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge, Chapra, on 10-5-1954 and the case was numbered as Title Suit No. 22 of 1954. On 14-5-1954, the petitioner applied for pronouncing a judgment in accordance with the award under Section 14 (2), Arbitration Act, 1940. The notice of the filing of the award was ordered to be issued to the parties. The Union of India appeared in the case on 28-6-1954 and, on 27-8-1954, the Union of India filed their written statement objecting to the award.

(2.) IT was argued in the Court below on behalf of the petitioner that the application of objection filed by the Union of India was barred by Article 158, Limitation Act, as it was filed more than thirty days after the date of service of the notice under Section 14(2), Arbitration Act. The Court below held that the objection of the Union of India was not for setting aside the award. IT was merely an application for modifying the award under Section 15, Arbitration Act and was well within time and, in such a case, Article 158, Limitation Act, was not applicable.

(3.) MR. Lal Narayan Sinha has placed the objection filed on behalf of the Union of India. From a perusal of the objection, it is manifestly clear that it was not for setting aside the award or for getting the award remitted for reconsideration and, therefore, there is no question of the application of Article 158, Limitation Act, to this case. Paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the objection refer to specific matters in respect of which the allegation is that the arbitrator has gone beyond the reference. Paragraph 3 refers to mistakes and errors. The allegations, therefore, fall within Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 15, Arbitration Act. There was no allegation of misconduct or supersession of the arbitration pr that the arbitration proceeding had become invalid. Nor was there any allegation that the award was improperly procured. The objection, therefore, was clearly an objection which comes well within Section 15, Arbitration Act. It cannot be held that the objection comes within the purview of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, I would hold that the objection is not barred by time and Article 158 of the Limitation Act has no application to the facts of the present case.