M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question raised in the appeal is with regard to the powers of the executing Court under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code to declare the decree as null and void on the ground that the award was null and void.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Union of India against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court dismissing Ex. No. 37/94 dated 4. 1. 1994 and directing recovery of the amount covered by the award-decree by way of attachment.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are as follows:

( 4 ) PURSUANT to a contract entered into by the respondent contractor with the Union of India (appellant- judgment debtor), an arbitrator was appointed on 2. 5. 1988 to adjudicate upon the disputes. The person so appointed was Shri N. H. Chandwani who was then on deputation as Arbitrator in the Ministry of Urban Development. In fact, Shri Chandwani was appointed in place of Shri J. D. Chopra who was working as Arbitrator earlier and who had resigned. Shri Chandwani passed the award on 5. 12. 90 and the award was made a rule of Court on 3. 8. 93 as no objections were filed by the Union of India.

( 5 ) IN the execution proceedings, the Union of India raised objection by filing this EA contending that the award dated 5. 12. 90 and the decree dated 3. 8. 93 were nullities because Shri Chandwani who passed the award had already relinquished his office as Arbitrator on 30. 11. 90 before he passed the award on 5. 12. 90 and that he had no jurisdiction to pass the award.

( 6 ) IT may be noted that a proceeding dated 20. 11. 90 was issued by the Union of India stating that the reference was made to Shri N. H. Chandwani -

"at present on deputation as Arbitrator"

AND he would be released from those duties prospectively w. e. f. 30. 11. 90 AN as per the orders of the Ministry dated 5. 11. 90. He was directed to report to duty thereafter as Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, Calcutta. It was also stated that he could dispose of pending cases in 10 days i. e. by 30. 11. 90. In fact, Shri N. H. Chandwani had himself given a certificate to the effect that he had relinquished office as arbitrator on 30. 11. 90.

( 7 ) IF the arbitrator had rendered an award before 30. 11. 90, there would have been no possibility for a contention by the Union of India that he rendered the award on 5. 12. 90, after relinquishment of office as Arbitrator. But inasmuch as the award was given after 30. 11. 1990, the Union of India contends in execution proceedings under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code that the award and decree are nullities.

( 8 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the contractor- respondent that this appeal is not maintainable under Order 43, Rule I Civil Procedure Code as Section 47 is not included in the definition of decree. Appeal is not maintainable under any other provision,it is contended.

( 9 ) THE following questions arise for consideration:

(1) Whether this appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act or Letters Patent (Lahore) is maintainable ?

(2) Whether the reference to Mr. N. H. Chandwani was because of his status and posting as an Arbitrator on deputation in the Urban Development Ministry and if so whether upon ceasing to function as Arbitrator in that post, w. e. f. 30. 11. 90, he could have passed an Award on 5. 12. 90 ?

(3) Whether it was open to the Union of India, as a judgment-debtor, to raise the question that the award and decree were nullities, in an application under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code ?

(4) Whether the fact that the Union of India did not file objections to the award nor filed anappeal nor an application under Sections 17, 30 or 33 is a bar to this application filed under Section 47 ?

( 10 ) BEFORE adverting to the above points, we have to mention that Mr. Chandwani is stated to have passed more than 60 awards after 30. 11. 90 the date on which he ceased to be an arbitrator. The question raised is,therefore, very important so fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document