GURU CHARAN SINGH Vs. NEW GANESH FINANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against the order dated 28. 10. 1978, passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Ajmer in arbitration proceedings in civil suit number 57 of 1970, by which he refused to set aside the award on the basis of objections filed by the appellant under S. 13 read with S. 15 to 17 and 33 of the Act.

(2.) ALL will suffice to say for the purpose of this appeal that respondent No. 2, had purchased a truck on hire purchase agreement for Rs. 31,075/-which has to be paid by way of instalments. It was contended by the respondent that the appellant stood as. a guarantor of respondent number 2, and executed an agreement to this effect on October, 1966. It was agreed between the parties that* in case of the dispute with regard to hire purchase agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration of one Shri Gopal Narain Mathur. The respondent No. 1, alleged that a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitration on January 3, 1970, and the arbitrator gave its award and filed an application under S. 14 (2) of the Act to make the award a decree of the Court. The learned Distt. Judge, passed an ex-parte order dated March 19, 1971, against the appellant on the application filed by the arbitrator, but the same was set-aside on July 7, 1975. The next date was fixed on August 7, 1975, on which the appellant paid the costs of Rs. 200/- regarding setting-aside the ex-parte order. On this date, the appellant sought time to file objections to the award and filed his objections on August 20, 1975. The respondent submitted an application on several grounds and one of the grounds was that the application for objections dated August 20, 1975, was time barred and therefore, issue number 8, was framed regarding the question of limitation. The learned District Judge, recorded the evidence of both the parties and after hearing the arguments dismissed all the objections raised by the appellant vide his impugned order dated October 28, 1978.

(3.) IT has been further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellate-court, is not expected to re- examine and re-appraise the evidence considered by the arbitrator, and held that the conclusion reached by the arbitrator is wrong, except when the finding of the arbitrator is purverse. Reliance in this respect has also been placed on the case of The President, U. O. I. and another Vs. Kalinga Constitution Co. (11 ).