A non-speaking award is not a nullity and void ab initio because such a defect, if any, is a curable one and could be cured on remand.

J.V.GUPTA, J.

1. This case has come up before us on a reference by the learned single Judge as there were two conflicting decisions of this Court in the Lalru Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. Ltd., Lalru V/s. Patiala District Wholesale Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society, 1979 Pun LJ 66 and the Pandhwa Co-op. Agricultural Service Society V/s. Sukdev Singh, 1979 Pun LJ 287. The controversy between the parties is; whether the award given by the Arbitrator under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 , (hereinafter called the Act) can be held to be a nullity by the executing Court if it is a non-speaking one?

2. In the present case, there was an award in favour of the Hoshiarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 35,311.70. When the execution of the said award was being sought, objections were filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor alleging that the award was void, illegal and invalid; hence it could not be executed. According to the judgment-debtor, no notice was given by the Arbitrator before the award was announced and that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award the future interest. It was also pleaded that the award was a non-speaking one and, thus, a nullity. The said objections were contested on behalf of the decree-holder, the petitioner. The executing Court found that the judgment-debtor did receive the notice regarding the arbitration and, therefore, the plea that no notice was issued to it was negatived. However, the executing Court found that the arbitrator had no powers to grant future interest and that the award was a non-speaking one. It was therefore held to be a nullity on these grounds. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on the Lalru Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Lalru s case (supra).

3. So far as the question of the grant of the future interest by the Arbitrator is concerned, the matter stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab V/s. Ajit Singh, 1979 Pun LJ 334 : (AIR 1979 Punj and Har 179), wherein it has been held that the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to grant future interest in references under Ss.55 and 56 of the Act.

4. Thus, the only controversy as observed earlier is; whether the award can be held to be a nullity by the executing Court if it is a non-speaking one?

5. In Lalru Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Lalru s case (1979 Pun LJ 66) as well as in Sukhdev Singh s case (1979 Pun LJ 287) (supra), reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Mathra Dass V/s. State of Punjab, 1975 Pun LJ 42. According to the Lalru Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Lalru s case (supra), the decision in Mathra Dass s case (supra), was that the proceedings before the Arbitrator are quasi-judicial and that the Arbitrator is bound to give reasons for his decision. According to the learned single Judge in the said case, since no reasons were given by the Arbitrator inter alia awarding the costs, the award was a nullity. An argument raised on behalf of the respondent that the executing Court cannot go beyond and decree even if some error of law has been committed by the Arbitrator while passing the award, was repelled with the observations that it was not sustainable because Sec.63 of the Act says that the award duly made would be deemed to be a decree which obviously means that only that award would be deemed to be a decree which conforms to the provisions of the statute. Subsequent thereto, when in Sukhdev Singh s case (supra), Mathra Dass s case (supra), was cited, the learned single Judge observed that the decision in Mathra Dass V/s. State of Punjab, 1975 Pun LJ 42, was not only made in a different context, but also it was not laid down therein that a non-speaking award would be non est and a nullity. It was further held therein that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree unless it comes to the conclusion that the same is a nullity. No decree is a nullity if the C