JOSHI, J. —This is a defendants revision application directed against the order dated 11th of August, 1976 passad by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur whereby he dismissed the application of the defendat-Petitioner for declaring the award passed in Civil Original Suit No 125/1976 as nullity.

2. The material facts relevant for the disposal of this revision application, briefly stated, are as follows:—

3. An application was moved by one Shri Kalusingh son of Shri Mukan Singh Bhati claimiing him to be the arbitrator under section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitrator Act, 1940 for filing the award given by him on 20th of May, 1973 in a dispute between the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff-non-petitioner, praying therein for making the award the rule of the court. The notice were issued to the concerned parties in regard to the filing of the award which were duly served upon the concerned parties for the date of hearing of 2-9-1976. Thereupon, the defendant-patitioner moved an application purporting to be under section 33 of the Act. The application was inter alia,based on the ground that the said award was vitiated, as it was passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, that the arbitrator had mis-conducted himself, as he was an intimate friend of the non-petitioner and was therefore, partial to the non-petitioner; and that there no valid arbitration agreement in existence referring the dispute to Shri Kalusingh, the alleged arbitrator. It was on these grounds that the defendant petitioner prayed that the award dated 20th of May, 1973 has no legal sanctity and does not exist in the eye of law and it should be declared accordingly. The plaintiff non-petitioner contested this application, amongest others, mainly on the grounds that the application was barred by times, as the same was presented beyond 30 days of the passing of the award.

4. The trial court upheld the contention of the plaintiff and rejected the application as bared by time. Hence this revision.

5. The short controversy before me is whether the application of the defendant for obtaining declaration that the award was a nullity is governed by article 158 (now 119) of the Indian Limitation Act or under Article 181 of the Act.

6. In order to consider the point germane to the controversy, it would be appropriate to make mention of section 30, 31 and 33 of the Act. They read as under:—

"30 Ground for setting aside an award,—

An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:

(a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself of the proceedings;

(b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court Supersedi the arbitration or after the arbitration proceedings have become invalied under Section 35;

(c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid."

"31. Jurisdiction (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, all question regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award or an arbitration agreement between the parties to the agreement or persons claiming under them shall be decided by the Court in which the award under the agreement has been, or may be, filed, any by no other Court.

(3) All applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the awarde has been, or may be filed, and to no other court

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in Act where in any reference any application under this Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceeding and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document