HAJI ABDUL KABIR SUMJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner firm was allotted contract No. CWC(P)23/86-87 provision of ancillaries for 30 Trs. Huts at Shershali. While work was being executed certain disputes arose between parties which were referred for arbitration. The arbitrator submitted award with record. On receipt of the award parties were directed to be served notice for objections. When the matter came up before court on 8-11-1991 court passed the following order:-

(2.) Contractor-petitioner has moved the application u/s 151 and O. 47 R.1, CPC for setting aside the order for the reason that despite petitioner-contractor having filed the objections and application u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award, within statutory period after he was served notice. Court has not considered same. The error has crept on record to say that parties have not filed objections to the award. Heard.

(3.) Perusal of record of main arbitration application No. 273/90 reveals that the award was made and signed on 26.7.1 990, The award was sent to the court with record and same was received on 29.10.90 in court Notice was ordered to be issued to the parties There is a office note that the counsel for Union of India informed the court that he is not taking any objection to the award while as the counsel for the contractor filed objections on 8,9.91. The objections styled as application U/s 30 of the Arbitration Act is on the record of A. A. No. 78/91 wherein the award is prayed to be set-aside It appears that filing of the objections was not brought to the notice of the court and perhaps the reason for the court beina mislead to record that the parties have not -filed objection to the award when in-fact the party M/s Haji Abdul Kabir Sumji had already filed objection in the petition seeking setting aside of the award. Obviously these objections have not been considered. It is only after court sees no reason to remit award or any or the matter referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set-aside the award, that the court is to proceed to pass judgement in terms of the award and upon judgement so pronounced, shall follow a decree. Making the award rule of the court (and in other words passing judgement and decree in terms of the award) without consideration of objections to the award is beyond para-meters of law. This mistake and apparent error in the impugned/ order appears to have arisen on record for the reason that the filing and availibility of objections on record is not brought to the notice of the court.