Engineer in Chief and Ors. Vs. Ratan Singh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1992 of 1997
With
Interlocutory Application Nos. 12-13 of 2000
(For directions to make the award, rule of the court and directions to set aside the award dated 6.12.2000)
With
(I.A. Nos. 4-5 in C.A. No. 2925/2000 & I.A. Nos. 5-8 in C.A. Nos. 2926-2927/2000)
With
Interlocutory Application Nos. 12-13 of 2000
(For directions to make the award, rule of the court and directions to set aside the award dated 6.12.2000)
With
(I.A. Nos. 4-5 in C.A. No. 2925/2000 & I.A. Nos. 5-8 in C.A. Nos. 2926-2927/2000)
Petitioner: Engineer in Chief and Ors.
Respondent: Ratan Singh & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1992 of 1997
With
Interlocutory Application Nos. 12-13 of 2000
(For directions to make the award, rule of the court and directions to set aside the award dated 6.12.2000)
With
(I.A. Nos. 4-5 in C.A. No. 2925/2000 & I.A. Nos. 5-8 in C.A. Nos. 2926-2927/2000)
With
Interlocutory Application Nos. 12-13 of 2000
(For directions to make the award, rule of the court and directions to set aside the award dated 6.12.2000)
With
(I.A. Nos. 4-5 in C.A. No. 2925/2000 & I.A. Nos. 5-8 in C.A. Nos. 2926-2927/2000)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 13, 2001
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Arbitration Act, 1940
Sections 18, 30, 33 – Objections – Time for making award expiring on 6.8.2000 – Time extended from 8.8.2000 and award made on 6.12.2000. Held that award was in time. Appeal allowed. Award made rule of court. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no.1 who is appearing in person.
2. We find, in this case, in the first award the amount awarded in favour of the respondent was about rupees 16 lacs. Thereafter, when another arbitrator was appointed by this Court, he awarded only about rupees 3 lacs in favour of the respondents. The question arose for the refund from the respondents. The objections are filed by the respondents to this second award so that the award is not made rule of court. On the last date, submission for the respondent was that he is entitled to rupees 16 lacs from the appellants. We directed the appellant to file a chart based on the award to show the correct position which has been filed. According to the appellants as per the chart, the amount is refundable from the respondents to the appellants which comes to about rupees 13 lacs 30 thousand. However, we want to make it clear, we are not making adjudication on this issue so that, it may not prejudice
the respondents before the executing court.
3. So far objections to the award, we find the main and the central objection is that the time for making the award was by the 6th August, 2000 and time was further extended from 8th August, 2000, hence, the award itself is non est. It is not in dispute, time for four months has been extended by four months from 8.8.2000 for making the award and the award itself has been made on 6.12.2000 which is within the extended period. So, we do not find any merit in this submission. We have also heard respondent no.1 in person and have gone through the other grounds raised in the objections, we do not find any sustainable ground is raised which calls for our interference. Accordingly, we make the award rule of the court and pass the decree in terms of the award.
4. The I.As. are ordered accordingly. The appeal also stands allowed. Cost on the parties.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no.1 who is appearing in person.
2. We find, in this case, in the first award the amount awarded in favour of the respondent was about rupees 16 lacs. Thereafter, when another arbitrator was appointed by this Court, he awarded only about rupees 3 lacs in favour of the respondents. The question arose for the refund from the respondents. The objections are filed by the respondents to this second award so that the award is not made rule of court. On the last date, submission for the respondent was that he is entitled to rupees 16 lacs from the appellants. We directed the appellant to file a chart based on the award to show the correct position which has been filed. According to the appellants as per the chart, the amount is refundable from the respondents to the appellants which comes to about rupees 13 lacs 30 thousand. However, we want to make it clear, we are not making adjudication on this issue so that, it may not prejudice
the respondents before the executing court.
3. So far objections to the award, we find the main and the central objection is that the time for making the award was by the 6th August, 2000 and time was further extended from 8th August, 2000, hence, the award itself is non est. It is not in dispute, time for four months has been extended by four months from 8.8.2000 for making the award and the award itself has been made on 6.12.2000 which is within the extended period. So, we do not find any merit in this submission. We have also heard respondent no.1 in person and have gone through the other grounds raised in the objections, we do not find any sustainable ground is raised which calls for our interference. Accordingly, we make the award rule of the court and pass the decree in terms of the award.
4. The I.As. are ordered accordingly. The appeal also stands allowed. Cost on the parties.
