The main legal point established in the judgment is that all questions regarding the validity, effect, or existence of an award shall be decided by the Court in which the award has been or may be filed and by no other Court.

Somayya, J.

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a separate suit lies to enforce the reliefs granted by an award passed under the Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940) or whether the procedure under Section 14 of the Act must be resorted to.

2. There were disputes between the parties regarding certain contracts which they entered into for sale by the plaintiff-respondent and for purchase by the defendants-appellants of certain quantities of Japan camphor. The case of the respondent is that the appellants did not take delivery of the camphor contracted for, that subsequently he sold the camphor and sustained loss which the appellants would not pay, that the disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitration of the Madras Kirana Merchants Association in accordance with a clause contained in the contracts to that effect and that an award was passed by the arbitrators. The suit is for recovery of the sum adjudged by the arbitrators by the award. The defence is that the respondent is confined to the remedy under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940, which, it is the common case of both the parties, applies to this case. The lower Court held that a separate suit lies and granted a decree. The defendants appeal, and the only point for decision is whether a separate suit lies to recover a sum of money adjudged by the award in favour of a party to the arbitration.

3. It is undoubted that before the Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940), where there was an arbitration and an award, two remedies were open to the successful party. One was to have the award filed into Court under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 or under Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure and to have it made a rule of Court. The other was to file a suit for the recovery of the sum adjudged or of the property given by the award. It is equally clear that in a suit filed by the successful party, the defendants had before this Act a right of challenging the validity of the award, on the ground that all the arbitrators did not act together or on other grounds open to them. The respondents learned advocate while claiming a right of separate suit to a successful party, maintains that the remedy of the unsuccessful party is only to proceed under the Act if he wishes to challenge the validity of the award. He also contends that in a suit by the successful party for getting the relief which is given under the award the defendant cannot even raise the question of the validity of the award and that he must submit to a decree without any defence. Thus stated the position is rather anamolous, but if the law says so, the respondents contention must be upheld. But before the Court arrives at this rather anamolous result, the provisions of the Act must be closely scrutinised. Under Section 14 of the Act where the arbitrators have made an award, they are to sign it and give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award. Clause 2 provides:

the arbitrators shall . at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court. . cause the award or a signed copy of it .. to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.

Section 15 and 16 provide that the Court may modify or correct an award in certain cases or remit the award on any matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration. Section 17 provides that where the Court sees no cause to remit the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced, a decree shall follow. Section 31, Clause (1) of the Act provides that an award shall be put into Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. Clause (2) of Section 31 is important and it may be set o