GOBIND SINGH Vs. BHIRGUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plain case. An attempt was made in the lower Court to destroy the award by alleging misconduct against the arbitrators in the sense that they did not give the parties, or one of the parties, or some of the parties, proper hearing, or adequate notice of the date of the hearing of the matter in which they were engaged. There are only two ways in which you can get rid of an award--either by getting it set aside in accordance with the provisions of para graphs 15 and 16 of the Code, in which case it is the duty of the Judge to refuse to file the award and grant a decree in the terms of the award; or if the learned Judge to whom application is made commits material irregularity in the course of the hearing, when he has the parties before him to decide whether or not the award filed was objectionable, then an application in revision may be made to this Court. These matters are really so elementary that it is hardly necessary to repeat them but the distinction, so far as the powers of the High Court are concerned, cannot be better expressed than in the head note in the well known Privy Council case, Ghulam Khan V/s. Mohammad Hassan 29 C. 167 : 6 C.W.N. 226 : 29 I.A. 51: 12 M.L.J. 77 : 4 Bom. L.R. 161 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 154 : 25 P.R. 190 (P C). The Privy Council there pointed out that the award having been made and an application to set it aside on the ground of misconduct or any other illegality having been refused, the Subordinate Judge has no option but to pronounce a decree in accordance with it. On the other hand they recognise that if the Subordinate Judge commits a material irregularity or refuses to exercise jurisdiction, for example as Mr. Lalit Mohan suggested here, refuses to hear a valid objection properly raised before him or entertains matters which are outside his jurisdiction, then undoubtedly this Court can interfere under Section 115 of the Civil Code--not with the arbitrators nor with the award but with the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the application. Those general observations cover the question we have to determine in this revision. No serious attempt is really made to show that the learned Subordinate Judge did anything which can be brought within the terms of Section 115. On the other hand, he gave the parties a very full hearing. In dealing with the application to him to set aside the award, he took evidence, he heard the statements of the arbitrators, and he formed a definite opinion on adequate material. After fully considering the matter and setting out his reasons clearly, he conies to the conclusion that no misconduct on the part of the arbitrators had been made out. The result is that he exercised his jurisdiction properly, and having arrived at certain findings of fact, those are conclusive. Mr. Lalit Mohan suggested that somewhere or other latent rather than patent objections might be found to what the arbitrators did which the learned Judge had not dealt with. These subordinate allegations are so vague that they are extremely difficult to handle. But the answer to them is that if there was any evidence of them at all the parties failed to satisfy the learned judge of their credibility. On the face of it the award is an admirable and careful document. Any party wishing to set aside an award on the ground that the arbitrators in arriving at an unfair award either refused to hear some body or heard the matter without giving notice of the hearing, undertakes the burden of satisfying the Court that this is what really happened. The objectors in this case have utterly failed to do so and the application in revision must be dismissed with costs. The stay order will be discharged with costs. Costs will include fees on the higher scale.