Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : J.P.Jain
HEMRAJ - Appellant
Versus
SURAJMAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. 96 Of 1970
Decided On : 08/05/1971
ARBITRATION - AWARD - REGISTRATION - RETURN OF AWARD TO ARBITRATORS FOR REGISTRATION - ORDER RETURNING AWARD NOT COVERED BY SECTION 13 (D) OR 16 (1) (C) OF THE ARBITRATION ACT - WHETHER COURT BOUND TO RECALL ORDER UNDER SECTION 151, C. P. C. - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a house in Ajmer. Non-petitioners 1 and 2 claimed the house by way of pre-emption. The parties agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators gave their award on 2nd November, 1968. The arbitrators submitted the award in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ajmer along with the proceedings drawn by them asking the Court to make the award a rule of the Court. The case was registered as Civil Suit No. 2/69. Notices were ordered to be issued to the parties. One of the arbitrators made an application in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ajmer stating that the award submitted by them earlier has not been registered by accidental slip and the arbitrators do not intend to add or vary the award except to get it registered by the Sub-Registrar, Ajmer. It was prayed that the award may be got registered by any official of the court or it may be handed over back to them to get it registered. The learned Additional District Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by his order dated 27-1-1969 the application of the arbitrator was accepted and the award was returned to him. The petitioner filed objections against the award on 3-2-1969. On 12th May, 1969, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 151 of the Code or Civil Procedure before the Additional District Judge, Ajmer stating that the award had not till then been registered and the order passed by the Court on 27th January, 1989 was not warranted by any law. The learned Additional district Judge, after having heard the parties, dismissed the application by his order dated 10th June, 1970 and he held that the order dated 27-1-1969 was passed after hearing the petitioners counsel and if he was not satisfied with the order, he could have challenged the same before an appropriate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order dated 27-1-1969 returning the award was not covered by Section 13 (d) or 16 (1) (c) of the Arbitration Act. However, the court also held that the order was not wholly without jurisdiction and that the petitioner had failed to challenge the order in a timely manner. Therefore, the court dismissed the revision application.
Issues: 1. Whether the order dated 27-1-1969 returning the award was covered by Section 13 (d) or 16 (1) (c) of the Arbitration Act? 2. Whether the court was bound to recall the order under Section 151, C. P. C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order dated 27-1-1969 returning the award was not covered by Section 13 (d) or 16 (1) (c) of the Arbitration Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rikhabdass v. Ballabhdas, AIR 1962 SG 551, which held that an order remitting an award to the arbitrator for rewriting it on a stamped paper is not covered by Section 16 (1) (c) of the Arbitration Act. 2. The court held that it was not bound to recall the order under Section 151, C. P. C. The court distinguished the cases relied upon by the petitioner, B. V. Patankar v. C. G. Sastry, AIR 1961 SC 272, Labhuram v. Kuberdas, 1957 Raj LW 598, and Konathala Briramulu v. Board of Revenue (C. T.), AIR 1965 Andh Pra 395, on the ground that in those cases the orders in question were passed ex parte or without notice to the affected party.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application.
J. P. JAIN, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by one Hemraj challenging the order dated 10th January, 1970 passed by the additional District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 2/69 by which his application dated 12th May, 1969 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased a house situate in the City of Ajmer for Rs. 20,000/non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Surajmal and his mother Smt. Gulab Bai claimed this house by way of pre-emption. With a view to settle the claim out of the Court, the parties agreed to make a reference to arbitration. They mutually agreed to appoint shri Manakchand Sogani Advocate, non-petitioner No. 3, Shri Kistoorchand jhanwar Advocate, non-petitioner No. 4 and Shri Mukandram Garg, Advocate, non-petitioner No. 5 as arbitrators. The dispute was referred to the arbitrators and the arbitrators gave their award on 2nd November, 1968, The arbitrators by an application dated 2nd December, 1968 submitted the award in the Court of additional District Judge, Ajmer along with the proceedings drawn by them asking the Court to make the award a rule of the Court. The case was registered as Civil suit No. 2/69. Notices were ordered to be issued to the parties.
( 3 ) ON 4-1-1969 Shri Kistoorchand Jhanwar non-petitioner No. 4, one of the arbitrators made an application in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ajmer stating that the award submitted by them earlier has not been registered by accidental slip and the arbitrators do not intend to add or vary the award except to get it registered by the Sub-Registrar, Aimer. It was prayed that the award may be got registered by any official of the court or it may be handed over back to them to get it registered. Hemraj who was the vendee of the house was given notice of this application. He was represented by his counsel Shri S. S. Deedwania. The learned Additional District Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by bis order dated 27-1-1969 the application of Shri Kistoorchand Jhanwal was accepted and the award was returned to him. The learned Judge placed reliance on Champalal v. Mst. Samrathbai, AIR 1960 SC 629 and the suit was posted on 52-1969.
( 4 ) SHRI Hemraj filed objections against the award on 3-2-1969. Non-petitioners nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply to the said objections on 28th March, 1969. As all the arbitrators could not be present before the Sub-Registrar, the award could not be registered finally, and the Sub-Registrar, Ajmer referred the award to the registrar for registering it.
( 5 ) ON May 12, 1969, Hemraj petitioner submitted an application under Section 151 of the Code or Civil Procedure before the Additional District Judge, Ajmer stating that the award had not till then been registered and the order passed by the Court on 27th January, 1989 was not warranted by any law. The learned Additional district Judge, after having heard the parties, dismissed the application by his order dated 10th June, 1970 and he held that the order dated 27-1-1969 was passed after hearing the petitioners counsel and if he was not satisfied with the order, he could have challenged the same before an appropriate authority. It is against this order that the petitioner Hemraj has come to this Court under Section 115, C. P. C. and wants this Court to set aside the orders dated 10th January, 1970 and 27th January, 1969 returning the award to the arbitrators for purposes of registration.
( 6 ) I have heard Shri S. K. Mal Lodha on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Chitranjan verma on behalf of non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, Arbitrators have not appeared in this Court.
( 7 ) THE first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 27-1-1969 returning the award was not covered by Section 13 (d) of the arbitration Act in which the lower Court has purported to return the award. He has also contended that the provisions contained in Section 16 (1)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
