HOORA Vs. ABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the legal representatives of one Allarakha against an order of the District Judge, Merta, holding that the application filed oy allarakha under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act was not in accordance with law as the award which he filed had not been filed in accordance with Section 14 (2) of of the Arbitration Act. Allarakha filed the original registered award in Court and alleged in Paras. 6 and 7 of his application under Section 17 that the arbitrators had given the award to him for taking legal proceedings.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the dispute between Allarakha and Abdul Karim with regard to a piece of land situated at Merta was referrea to five arbitrators under an agreement which is on record. The five arbitrators appointed under it were Haji Mulla Usman, Abdulla, Farid Baksh, Noor Mohammad and Ashraf Ali. Four of these arbitrators filed an affidavit in support of the application of Allarakha in which it was alleged that the award was handed over by noor Mohammad to Allarakha on behalf of Noor Mohammad and the remaining arbitrators for taking legal proceedings on the basis of it. These 4 arbitrators were cross-examined. Noor Mohammad stated in cross-examination: -. . (Vernacular Text Ommited ). . In the first part of the above statement he has used the word ----In the second part he has however stated that. . (Vernacular Text Ommited ). .

(3.) ON behalf of the applicants my attention was drawn to the decision of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Rahmetulla v. Vidya Bhusan, AIR 1963 All 602. In that case the party in whose favour the award was given filed it in court and made a prayer that a decree be passed on it. It was not alleged by the plaintiff that he was filing the award under the authority of the arbitrators. When notice was issued to the opposite party no objection was raised that the award was filed without the authority of the arbitrators. From this absence of objection the learned Judges concluded that the award was filed with the authority of the arbitrators. With all respect no such inference can be drawn from the failure on the part of the defendant to raise an objection. It was held in Kumbha Mawji v. Dominion of India, AIR 1953 SC 313, by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that section 14 (2) implies that where the award is in fact filed into Court by a party he should have the authority of the arbitrators or umpire for doing so and that authority has to be specifically alleged and proved. In Rahmetulla's case AIR 1963 All 602, Rahmetulla did not allege in his application that he had been authorised by the arbitrators to file the award in Court. As such the Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree on the basis of the award. In this connection I may refer to the decision of another Division Bench of the same High court in Araod Kumar v. Hari Prasad, AIR 1958 All 720 in which it was held that section 14 (2) contemplates that the award is filed in Court under the authority of the arbitrator. The question as to whether it can only be filed under the authority of all the arbitrators or only some of them was not considered in that case. The only question which was considered was whether the Court could act on an award filed by a party without the authority of the arbitrator. It was observed-