Battu Lal Nikhara v. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam — 1985 DIGILAW 967 (ALL)

ORDER 1. This is a revision filed under S. 115. C.P.C. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present revision are as under : 3. Battu Lal Nakhara, the revisionist, had entered into a contract with the Food Corporation of India, namely, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam. One of the terms of the contract was that if there is a dispute between the parties, the dispute shall be referred to an arbitrator whose award shall be final. The arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, was to be an officer or an authority appointed by the Food Corporation of India. Since there was a dispute arising out of the contract, the matter was referred to an arbitrator, Sri Shree Krishna Gupta. He gave an award on 31st Aug., 1981. for a sum of Rs. 21,493.88 p. After delivering the award within about two or three days thereafter, he gave a copy of the award to both the parties, namely, the revisionist as well as to the Food Corporation of India. Since the arbitrator did not file the award in Court under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, the revisionist moved an application before the Court on 25th Nov., 1981, under S. 17 for getting a decree passed on the basis of the said award. A further prayer was made in the application that the award be summoned from the arbitrator. 4. The Court in which the application was filed summoned the award from the arbitrator. Sri Vijay Prakash Srivastava, who was the representative of the arbitrator, appeared as a witness before the court as P.W. 1 and also produced the original award before the court. 5. The Food Corporation of India, thereafter, took an objection that the award cannot be made a rule of the court for the reason that the application moved by the revisionist was barred by time relying upon Article 119 of the Limitation Act. The Food Corporation of India is a public sector Corporation. It is expected to do justice to the persons dealing with it. It is a matter of surprise that in spite of the fact that its own officer gave an award, it not only did not get the award made rule of the court, but also objected to a decree being passed on the basis of the award on the ground of limitation. It is a matter of surprise that in spite of the fact that its own officer gave an award, it not only did not get the award made rule of the court, but also objected to a decree being passed on the basis of the award on the ground of limitation. In any case, since it was open to it, in law, to make such a ground, the ground of limitation was considered by the court below. 6. The Court below came to the conclusion that the application moved by the revisionist being not an application under Sec. 14(2) of the Act, the application under Sec. 17 was not maintainable and, as such, it refused to pass a decree in terms of the award. It further held that even if the application of the revisionist is taken to be an application under Sec. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, it was barred by limitation. The application moved by the revisionist was dismissed by the Court below by judgment dated 6th Oct., 1982. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been filed in this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended, firstly, that once the award had been produced by the arbitrator before the court, the court should have exercised its discretion in passing a decree in terms of the award under Sec. 17 of the Act. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the fact, that copies of the award were given to the parties amounted to an authority given to the parties to file the award in order that they may obtain a decree in terms of the award. 9. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act quoted below : "14. Award to be signed and filed :- (I) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. Award to be signed and filed :- (I) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award: (3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special case under cl. (b) of Sec. 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of, the award." Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 14, quoted above, requires the arbitrators or the umpire, as the case may be, to give a notice of making of the award to the parties concerned. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act provides that the arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or if so directed by the Court file the award in Court and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. Sec. 17 of the Act gives power to the Court to pronounce a judgment according to the award if it sees no cause to remit the award or to set aside the award. After the judgment is pronounced, a decree is to follow in accordance with the said award. 10. Article 119 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for the period of limitation for making applications under the Arbitration Act. After the judgment is pronounced, a decree is to follow in accordance with the said award. 10. Article 119 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for the period of limitation for making applications under the Arbitration Act. An application for filing in Court an award can be moved within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of the making of the award and an application for setting aside an award or getting an award reconsidered can be made within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice of the filing of the award. From a reading of Article 119 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, it is clear that this period of limitation is applicable in a case where either a party moves the Court for making the award a rule of the court or to a party who wants to file an objection for setting aside the award. There is no period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for an arbitrator to file an award in court or if an award is filed in pursuance of an order of the court then the court cannot pass a decree on the basis of that award within a certain period of time. If an award is filed before the court, it is always open to the court to pass orders under Sec. 17 of the Act. In the instant case, as I have already mentioned above, the arbitrator had sent the award to the court through his representative. The court below refused to give effect to this award on the ground that the arbitrator had not authorised the parties or the representative to seek a decree on the basis of the award. 11. In Kanhaiya Lal Dubey v. Awinash Talwar, AIR 1972 All 237 , a Division Bench of this Court held that the conduct of the arbitrator in obtaining endorsement from the parties in regard to the giving of the award and then in giving a copy to such party clearly establishes that there was an intention on the part of the arbitrator authorising the parties to enforce the award in any manner they liked, including by filing thereof in court. 12. In the instant case also, the notice of the award was given to the parties and a copy thereof was given to each of the parties. 12. In the instant case also, the notice of the award was given to the parties and a copy thereof was given to each of the parties. In view of the principles laid down in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Dubey v. Awinash Talwar (supra), the parties shall be deemed to have an authority to file the award. In the circumstances, firstly, there was an award filed already in the court and there was implied authority with the revisionist for getting a decree on the basis of the said award. When these two conditions precedent were already fulfilled, the court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to pass a decree on the basis of the award. 13. In the District Co-operative Development Federation Ltd. v. Ram Samujh Tewari, AIR 1973 All 476 , a Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the circumstances in which the Court can exercise its powers under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act, and as to whether filing of an application under Sec. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was a condition precedent or not. The Full Bench took the view that an application under Sec. 14(2) of the Act was not a condition precedent for enabling the Court to pass a decree under Sec. 17 of the Act. The Full Bench opined as under :- "Therefore, the exercise of power by the Court under Sec. 17 is not dependent on filing of an application under Sec. 14(2) and the Court can exercise power under Sec. 17 and proceed to pass a decree in terms of the award if the award has been produced before it notwithstanding the fact that an application under Sec. 14(2) had never been moved by a party to the arbitration agreement or a person claiming under such party." 14. The principle laid down in the Full Bench case, mentioned above, fully applies to the present case. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist are well founded. The court below, acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to pass a decree in terms of the award dated 31st Aug. 1981. 15. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 6th Oct., 1982, is set aside. The court below, acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to pass a decree in terms of the award dated 31st Aug. 1981. 15. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 6th Oct., 1982, is set aside. The application moved by the revisionist for making the award dated 31st Aug., 1981 a rule of the court is allowed. The court below is directed to prepare a decree in terms of the award within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before the court. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs of this revision.