K. KANNAN, J.

I. The lis – Could a later arbitral award be made rule of Court under Arbitration Act, 1940, if the earlier award had remained without Court's imprimatur?

1. The revision is against the order of the Appellate Court setting aside the order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana. The Court of First Instance entertained a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 directing the Arbitrator to file an award dated 02.08.1983 regarding two properties which were house and industrial plot with business carried at the industrial plot but dismissed the petition. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted a judgment in terms of the award.

2. The petition had been filed in a case where the Arbitrator was deciding the dispute with reference to the properties belonging to the parties. When notice of the petition had been served, the petitioner before this Court and Surjit Singh, Sewa Singh and Chetan Singh, who were respondent Nos. 2 to 4, filed objections under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act pleading that the Arbitrator, after his appointment, had given his award on 13.08.1982 which was accepted by all the parties had become functus officio. He could not, therefore, amend his award and give any other award and he had no authority to give an award on 02.08.1983. There could be, therefore, no justification for the Court to pass a decree in terms of the said award. It was stated in objection that the Arbitrator had mis-conducted himself in the proceedings and had given subsequent award without any jurisdiction. The subsequent award was, therefore, vitiated by fraud and illegality and inoperative. It was also stated by them in their objections that there had been a suit instituted by Tarlok Singh and Sewa Singh against PSEB as well as the objectors. That suit was allowed to be withdrawn when the applicants made a statement before Court that the parties would be bound by the terms of the award dated 13.08.1982.

II. Award not made rule of Court is still not a waste paper, it will operate as estoppel, the basis for objection before Courts below.

3. Admittedly, the award dated 13.08.1982 had not been made the rule of Court. The Court of First Instance reasoned that the earlier award which was not brought before the Court to make it an executable decree does not become void ab initio or non est. It is at least binding between the parties and constitute an estoppel. He referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar and Others vs. Surinder Kumar and Others, AIR 1970 SC 833 to observe that the award is indeed a final adjudication of a Court of the parties' own choice and was conclusive upon the merits of controversy submitted. As between the parties and their privies, an award is entitled to that respect which is due to judgment of a court of last resort. He also referred to a decision of Allahabad High Court in Kedar Nath vs. Ambika Prasad and Others, AIR 1974 Allahabad 37 that held that an award which was not yet made the decree of Court, shall not be treated as a mere waste paper. The Mysore High Court in M.S. Ramaiah vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1973 Mysore 17 had held that a dispute, which was once referred to Arbitrator and considered as award does not survive for another reference. It became extinguished and merged with award even though not made a rule of the Court. A similar view was also expressed by the Orissa High Court in Gobinda Gonda vs. Kalu Hauda and Another, AIR 1966 Orissa 228. After setting out the objections with particular reference to the decisions referred to above, the Court of First Instance held that a subsequent application filed by the applicants to make the subsequent award rendered by this Arbitrator as rule of Court was incompetent. He upheld the objections and dismissed the petition. This judgment of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge was a subject of appeal to the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge by his de