Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, UMAMAHESWARAM
Indurthi Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
Indurthi Venkata Narasimha Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 07-19-62
ARBITRATION - AWARD - RE-WRITING ON STAMP PAPER AND REGISTRATION - FUNCTUS OFFICIO - STAMP ACT, SECTION 35 - REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 17(1)(B) - ARBITRATION ACT, SECTIONS 14, 30(C), 39(1)(VI) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 115 - REVISION PETITION - APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
Parties referred their disputes to arbitration. Arbitrators made an award on 28-1-1956 on plain paper. Later, they re-wrote the award on stamp paper and registered it on 19-6-1956. The District Judge set aside the award under Section 30(c) of the Arbitration Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. Arbitrators become functus officio as soon as they sign the award. 2. Re-writing the award on stamp paper and getting it registered is not a ministerial act. 3. The award requires to be duly stamped as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 4. The award requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. 5. A private award cannot be set up as a defense unless it is filed into Court and a decree is obtained thereon. 6. An appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act is the proper remedy against an order setting aside an award under Section 30(c) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the arbitrators were entitled to re-write the award on a duly stamped paper and present it for registration? 2. Whether the award required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act? 3. Whether a revision petition lies under Section 115, C. P. C. against an order setting aside an award under Section 30(c) of the Arbitration Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Arbitrators become functus officio as soon as they sign the award. Re-writing the award on stamp paper and getting it registered is not a ministerial act. 2. The award requires to be duly stamped as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 3. The award requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. 4. A private award cannot be set up as a defense unless it is filed into Court and a decree is obtained thereon. 5. An appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act is the proper remedy against an order setting aside an award under Section 30(c) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-- The parties viz. , Indurthi Srinivasa Rao and Indurthi Prahlada Rao represented by his guardian Anjani Bai and Indurthi Venkatanarasimha Rao referred their disputes to arbitration by executing an agreement on 11-2-1955 in favour of five arbitrators. The four arbitrators chose an umpire Kudikala Venkatarama Rao. As the award could not be made within four months, they executed a fresh agreement of reference dated 10-10-1955 in favour of the same arbitrators. An award was made on a plain sheet of paper signed by all the five arbitrators. On 17-4-1956 one of the arbitrators by name Murlidhar Rao died. The award dated 28-1-1956 was engrossed on stamp paper on 21-5-1956 and was signed by the four arbitrators (the fifth arbitrator having died by that time ). The re-written award signed by the four arbitrators was submitted for registration by the umpire Kudikala Venkata Rama Rao on 19-6-1956 and it was registered on 27-6-1956. The umpire Kudikala Venkata Rama Rao filed an application under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act. Notice was issued to the parties to file their objections and Indurthi Venkafa Narasimna Rao among other objections raised the objection that the award dated 28-1-1956 was invalid as it was not duly stamped and registered. He also contended that the arbitrators had become functus officio as soon as they signed the award on 28-1-1956 and that the re-written award dated 21-5-1956 though duly stamped and registered is not valid. The learned District Judge held that as soon as the arbitrators had made the award on 28-1-1956, they became functus officio and they had no jurisdiction to re-write the award on stamp paper and have it registered. He also held that as the re-written award had been presented after four months from the date of the execution of the award it was invalid. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the revision petition to this Court.
( 3 ) SRI Gopalakrishnayya, the learned advocate for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the re-writing of the award on stamp paper and getting it registered is only a ministerial act and that the arbitrators were perfectly justified in re-writing the document on proper stamp paper and presenting it for registration. He contended that it the second document does not convey rights to his client, he is entitled to rely upon the award dated 28-1-1956 which was written on plain white sheet of paper. He urged that under the proviso to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, time should be granted to him to pay the stamp fluty and penalty in order to validate it. He also contended that the document dated 28-1-1956 did not require registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. An incidental objection was taken that the remedy of the petitioner was only to prefer an appeal under Section 39 (6) of the Arbitration Act and not to file a revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. We shall deal with the objections seriatim.
( 4 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Riknab-dass v. Ballabhdas, (AIR 1962 SC 551 ). Sarkar, J. delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, held that as soon as the award is signed by the arbitrators, they become functus officio. The question that arose for decision before the Supreme Court was whether the Trial Court was justified in passing an order remitting the award to the arbitrator for re-submitting it to the Court o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.