Most. Janki Kuer and Ors. Vs. Sheoji Prasad and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 2367 of 1988.
Petitioner: Most. Janki Kuer and Ors.
Respondent: Sheoji Prasad and Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 2367 of 1988.
Judges: SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S.RANGANATHAN,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 25, 1988
Head Note:
ARBITRATION ACT, 1940:
Sections 10 and 33 – Second award, not signed by 7 arbitrators but by 6 of them, accepted by the Subordinate Judge – Validity of award is a question of fact – Petition dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This petition for special leave to appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna, dated the 4th September, 1986. The High Court has dismissed the one appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge who had passed a judgment in terms of the award dated the 30th March, 1984. There was a dispute whether there was an award earlier on 17.1.1984. The alleged award dated the 17th January, 1984 was signed by seven arbitrators who were appointed. The award in question, which was accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge, was signed by six of them. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the second award was only the valid and speaking award. No application had been filed for setting aside the award under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It must be reiterated that there had been no application for judgment in terms of the first award. It is true that the second award was not signed by 7 of the arbitrators appointed, but by 6 of them, that is permissible in terms of Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In that view of the matter whether there was an award of 17.1.1984 or whether the award of 30.3.1984 is the valid award, is a question of fact and the learned Subordinate Judge having discussed the evidence came to the finding that the award of 30.3.1984 be made Rule of the Court and the High Court has found out no reason to interfere. We see no substance in this petition.
2. The special leave petition fails and is dismissed.
1. This petition for special leave to appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna, dated the 4th September, 1986. The High Court has dismissed the one appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge who had passed a judgment in terms of the award dated the 30th March, 1984. There was a dispute whether there was an award earlier on 17.1.1984. The alleged award dated the 17th January, 1984 was signed by seven arbitrators who were appointed. The award in question, which was accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge, was signed by six of them. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the second award was only the valid and speaking award. No application had been filed for setting aside the award under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It must be reiterated that there had been no application for judgment in terms of the first award. It is true that the second award was not signed by 7 of the arbitrators appointed, but by 6 of them, that is permissible in terms of Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In that view of the matter whether there was an award of 17.1.1984 or whether the award of 30.3.1984 is the valid award, is a question of fact and the learned Subordinate Judge having discussed the evidence came to the finding that the award of 30.3.1984 be made Rule of the Court and the High Court has found out no reason to interfere. We see no substance in this petition.
2. The special leave petition fails and is dismissed.
