C. L. Chaudhry ( 1 ) BY agreement No. 16/cdv/1971-:2, the petitioner was awarded work by the Delhi Development Authority for the construction of 370/1620 DU s for LIG at Pankha Road. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties out of the execution of this work and the same were referred by the D. D. A. by Memo No. E. M. 2 (63)/71/arbn/4060-64 dated 29. 7. 1981 for arbitration of Shri G. Subramanayam, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and published his award on 11. 5. 84. The Arbitrator awarded Rs. 1,74,320. 58 to the petitioner with interest @ 6%. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Sections 14, and 17 of the Arbitration Act on 9. 7. 84 for getting the award and the proceedings filed in Court. On 17. 7. 84, this Court issued notice to the Arbitrator Shri G. Subramanyam for filing the award and the proceedings in Court. Notice was issued for 14. 9. 84 On 14. 9. 84, the award and the proceedings were not received in Court. Notice issued to the Arbitrator was also not received back after service. The matter was adjourned to 26th October, 1984 to await the service report. On 26th October, 1984 another notice was issued to the Arbitrator for 3rd December, 1984. Again, on 3rd December, 1984 a reminder was issued for 29. 1. 85 for filing the award. On 29. 1. 85, the counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Joint Registrar that the Arbitrator had since expired and as such the Member Engineering DDA may be asked to file the award and the proceedings. On this request a latter was written to the Member Engineering DDA for filing the award and the proceedings. In pursuance to this notice, the award and the proceedings were filed by Shri Umesh Parshad Bhattka, who was authorised by the Personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) DDA Jhandewalan, New Delhi and it was received by this Court on 23. 3. 85. Notice of the filing of the award was given on 27. 3. 85. The petitioner was served on 26. 4. 85 and service on the respondent DDA was effected on 23. 4. 85. ( 3 ) THE D. D. A. has filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. 3. 85. Notice of the filing of the award was given on 27. 3. 85. The petitioner was served on 26. 4. 85 and service on the respondent DDA was effected on 23. 4. 85. ( 3 ) THE D. D. A. has filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. It is stated in the objection petition that the award was not filed by an authorised person. Shri G. Subramanayam died on 14. 8. 84 and he did not authorise anyone to file the award in the Court and as such the proceedings are wholly incompetent and no cognizance can be taken of this award by the Court. It is further contended that the award suffers from legal infirmity and is not sustainable in law. The Arbitrator has not given a reasoned award as per terms of the reference. The Arbitrator has ignored and violated the terms of the contract and other documentary evidence and has exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding the sum more than claimed by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has contested the proceedings. In the reply filed by the petitioner, it is denied that the award has not been filed by the authorised person. It is further denied that the proceedings are wholly incompetent and no cognizance of the award can be taken by the Court. It is further stated that the Arbitrator has given a reasoned award. The allegations of misconduct have also been denied. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections of defendant No. 1/dda ? 2. Relief?i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The first contention of the learned counsel for the DDA is that the award was not filed by an authorised person and as such no proceedings can be taken on the basis of the award. ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act on 9. 7. 84 for getting the award and the arbitration proceedings filed in Court. On 17. 7. 84, a notice was issued to the Arbitrator for filing the award and the arbitration proceedings. However, the Arbitrator died on 14. 8. 84 before the award could be filed by him. 7. 84 for getting the award and the arbitration proceedings filed in Court. On 17. 7. 84, a notice was issued to the Arbitrator for filing the award and the arbitration proceedings. However, the Arbitrator died on 14. 8. 84 before the award could be filed by him. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act reads as under :- "14. Award to be signed and filed: (1) When the arbitrators on 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 of 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 clause (b) of Section 13 the Court after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce the opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of the award. " ( 7 ) NO doubt, it is true that the award has not been filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Act, as the Arbitrator before his death had not authorised any body to file the award. This is not the end of the matter. Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 is not exhaustive and it does not lay down that in case the award is not filed by the Arbitrator or anybody authorised by him then no award can be filed in Court and no proceedings can be taken pursuant to that award. ( 8 ) WHERE Section 14 (2) cannot apply, the Court has the power, in an appropriate case, to make an order for filing of the award under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. ( 8 ) WHERE Section 14 (2) cannot apply, the Court has the power, in an appropriate case, to make an order for filing of the award under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. By virtue of Section 41 (1) (a) of the Act the provisions of Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable to all proceedings before the Court and to all appeals under the Arbitration Act, Of course, the Code is made applicable subject to the provisions of the Act but if Section 14 (2) does not apply, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code can be invoked for causing the award to be filed in Court. In this case application under Section 14 was filed on 9. 7. 84 when the Arbitration was alive. By reason of his death on 14 8. 84, the substantive provision of Section 14 (2) ceased to be applicable. On 29. 1. 85, counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the Arbitrator had expired and as such the Member Engineering, DDA may be asked to file the award and arbitration proceeding. On the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the Court write a letter to the Member Engineering, DDA, for filing the award and the arbitration proceedings. The Court exercised its inherent power for causing the award filed in Court. In my opinion, the Court has the power under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code to make an order for filing of the award since this power is not contrary to any provision of the Arbitration Act. lam supported in my view by a Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Panchanan Dey v. Union of India1, wherein it was held as under :- 1. AIR 1959 Calcutta 84. " (16) In my view where section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act cannot apply, the Court may in a proper case make an order for the filing of the award under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 41 (a) of the Arbitration Act provides that subject to the provision of the Act and of the rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court and to all appeals under the Act. Section 41 (a) of the Arbitration Act provides that subject to the provision of the Act and of the rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court and to all appeals under the Act. " It is true that the Code is made applicable subject to the provisions of the Act but if Section 14 (2) does not apply in a case where arbitrator or umpire has died before causing the award to be filed, as in my view it does not, there can be no conflict with that section if the Code is applied in such a case. The proceedings before the Court have, however, to be proceedings "under this Act". There may, therefore, be some difficulty in a case where even before an application is made to the court for an order for the filing of the award, the arbitrator or umpire is already dead, because it may be said that in such a case, the application is not an application under S. 14 (2) of the Act and there being no other provision authorising such an application, it is not an application under the Act and, therefore, the Code cannot be imported under the provisions of S. 41 (a ). I need not consider such a case on the present occasion, because the present case is not such a case. Here, the umpire was alive at the time when the application was made and, therefore, the application for an order on him to file the award was an application under S. 14 (2) of the Act and the proceeding initiated by that application was a proceeding under the Act. By reason of the events which happened subsequently, the substantive provisions of Sec. 14 (2) ceased to be applicable and, in my view, the court having before it a proceeding under the Act, could then resort to section 151 of the Code to make an order for filing the award, since no other provision in the Act applied, if, however, it was possible on the material before the court to make such an order and if justice required that it should be made. " ( 9 ) THE Arbitrator was the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) in the Delhi Development Authority. " ( 9 ) THE Arbitrator was the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) in the Delhi Development Authority. The award and the arbitration proceedings are coming from the proper custody with a covering letter from the Personal Assistant to the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) D. D. A. , Jhandewalan, New Delhi, It is not the case of DDA that this was not the award or the arbitration proceedings made and conducted by the arbitrator. In my opinion, filing of the award is proper and legal and subsequent action can be taken on the basis of this award. ( 10 ) IT is next contended that the award was not a reasoned award in terms of the reference. I have perused the award. The contention is untenable. The Arbitrator has given a reasoned award and he has rendered reasons in dealing with all the claims of the petitioner. The contention is rejected. ( 11 ) THE other objection relates to the merits of the award. I am afraid that such objections are not entertained by the court under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Under the law, the Arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. In this connection I rely upon the case of MIS Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s K. Shashikant and Co2, wherein it was observed as under :- "the award is reached one. The objections which have been raised against the award are such that they cannot indeed be taken into consideration within the limited ambit of challenge admissible under the scheme of the Arbitration Act. Under the law, the Arbitrator is made the final Arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. Strong reliance was placed by the appellant s learned counsel on an old Madras decision in Yogambal Boyee Ammani Ammal v. Naina Pilial Markayar (1909) ILR 33 Mad. 15. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to the award is not permissible by taking the stand that the Arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of S. 70 of the Contract Act. 15. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to the award is not permissible by taking the stand that the Arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of S. 70 of the Contract Act. In these premises the objection filed to the award has to be rejected. We direct the award to be made a rule of the court. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. " ( 12 ) NO other point was stressed before me. In the result, the objections fail and deserve to be dismissed. The objections are dismissed with costs. The award is made a rule of the court. In terms of the award, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,74,320. 58 with interest of the rate of 6% from the date of the award ie. 11. 5. 84 till the date of decree. If the amount is paid within two months from today, the petitioner shall not be entitled to charge any future interest. However, in case of default, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% from the date of decree till payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of these proceedings. The petition is disposed of.