Guru Dutt vs State of Himachal Pradesh

D.B. Lal, J.—This first appeal is directed against the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sirmui dismissing the objections of the Appellant and making the award a rule of the Court u/s 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Appellant Guru Dutt had purchased a lot of resin blazes from the Forest Department for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/- and odd and the agreement thereof was executed on April 5, 1966. Subsequently a dispute arose between the Appellant and the Union of India and the said dispute was referred to arbitration under Clause 50 of the agreement. Accodingly the Conservator of Forests, Simla, was appointed arbitrator. He gave his award on April 19, 1969. Thereafter the award was filed in Court and usual notices were issued to the Appellant as well as to the Union of India. Objections were filed on behalf of the Appellant and the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed these objections. The Appellant has felt aggrieved of that decision and has come up in appeal.

It was contended on behalf of the Appellant, that he could not address arguments before the learned Subordinate Judge as he had not paid costs which were awarded for adjournment on the previous date. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge for adjournment was conditional on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. This is clear from his order, dated June 30, 1970. When the costs were not paid, the adjournment could be deemed refused and if the case was set down for arguments, the Appellant had no right to address the arguments. Nevertheless the learned Subordinate Judge considered the entire evidence and gave his decision. I do not consider nor has it been shown in what manner the Appellant was prejudiced,

That apart the objection to this effect was never raised before the learned Subordinate Judge when he set down the case for argu ments. When no such ground was taken before the learned trial Court it is difficult to say at this stage as to how the Appellant was prejudiced if no arguments were addressed on his side.

Despite the plea aforesaid I considered the entire case on merit and in my opinion no substance is made out for making an interference. It is submitted in the foremost that the award itself was incomplete but as is evident from the award itself, the arbitrator considered the "differences with regard to the recovery of Government dues from Guru Dutt"-meaning thereby the claim of the Government as well as the counter-claim of Guru Dutt were both considered and resolved by the arbitrator. The award further clarifies that the parties were heard and their evidence both oral and documentary was considered. Thus the amount discovered as due from the Appellant was the result of enquiry regarding both the claim and the counter-claim and the entire evidence was considered. It was not required of the arbitrator to have framed any issue or to have given a decision issue-wise. He could give a cumulative award which he has done. In Smt. Santa Sila Devi and Another Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Others, their Lordships have held that a Court should approach an award with a desire to support it, if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal. Unless a reference to arbitration specifically so requires the arbitrator is not bound to deal with each claim or matter separately, but can deliever a consolidated award. The Court will rather presume, unless the contrary appears, that the award disposed of finally all the matters in controversy. Their Lordships again reiterated the same view in Firm Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, It was held that the arbitrator is not bound to give a separate award for each claim but can give a lump sum award. In my own decision reported in Devi Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. ILR Himachal Series 40. I considered the ground regarding incompleteness of award and followed these two decisions of the Supreme Court. It was held that the arbitrator was not bound to deal with each claim in dispute separately. It was enough if he considered the entire claim and made a consolidated award. Therefore, it could not be stated that the award was incomplete or that the claim set out by the Appellant was not considered.

It was then contended that under a certain clause of the'' agreement the amount was recoverable "in due process of law'' and, therefore, the arbitration itself was not called for. The entire reasoning seems to be faulty. The amount is to be recovered in due process of law inasmuch as the award is made a Rule of the Court and a decree follows which can be executed in accordance with law. Again this plea was not taken before the learned trial Judge, nor does it find mention in the grounds of appeal preferred in this Court. The learned trial Judge rightly held that the contract was duly rescinded by the Conservator of Forests and that the arbitrator did not misconduct himself while giving the award.

In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent.