Haryana State Electricity Board vs Gurjit Metal Industries

H.S. Bedi, J.—The present judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1655 and 2353 of 1992. The facts have been taken from the former case.

On a dispute having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to an Arbitrator, who gave his award on May 29, 1986. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called ''the Act'') for summoning the award and making the same a ''Rule of the Court''.

Notice of the application was given to the respondents who put in appearance and respondent No. 1 raised an objection that as the Arbitrator had rendered his award beyond the period of four months, the same was not liable to be made a ''Rule of the Court.'' The petitioner, filed a reply to the objection raised and pleaded that the award given by the Arbitrator was legal and binding on the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

Whether the award dated 29.5 1986 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection petition ? OPO

Whether the objection petition is liable to be dismissed as alleged in additional objection No. 1 ? OPR

Whether the objection petition is time barred ? OPR

Whether the objection petition has not been properly verified, if so, its effect ? OPR.

Relief

The trial Court after considering the entire matter, dismissed the objection petition and made the award a ''Rule of the Court. It was held that the award was not open to challenge as time barred as the period for making of the award had been extended by mutual consent. The matter was, thereafter, taken in appeal where Issues Nos. 1 and 2 above were, agitated by the said respondent. While the Appellate Court upheld the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1, it reversed it on Issue No. 2 and held that the award having been made, was beyond time was without jurisdiction and as such, could not be made ''Rule of the Court''.

Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court, two petitions have been filed in this Court the present one by the petitioner claiming that the finding as to the award being time barred was erroneous in law and the second petition (No. 2353 of 1992) filed by respondent stating that his claim for Rs 10,000/- had been wrongly rejected by the Arbitrator and as such ought to be granted to him.

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the award rendered by the Arbitrator, it has been clearly stated that both the parties had agreed for extension of time for another period of four months on .February 27, 1986, and admittedly, the award was made within that period. He has urged relying on State of Punjab Vs. Hardyal, and Nagar Palika, Mirzapur Vs. The Mirzapur Elect. Supply Co. Ltd., , that if an Arbitration award has been made after the expiry of the time for arbitration and a formal extension of time has not been obtained from the Court, the conduct of the parties was a major factor to be taken into account to waive the objection as to the time limit and so as to make the award a ''Rule of the Court'', it has also been stated that the extension of time can be granted by the Court even after award has been rendered and even at the stage of proceedings for making it a ''Rule of the Court''.

I have perused the record and the judgments cited. It is clear that the parties by their own conduct, had agreed to waive the question of time and this fact was noticed by the Arbitrator in the award itself. It is also apparent that it is open to the Court before whom an application for making the award a ''Rule of the Court'', is filed to pass a formal order of extension of time for making the award. This discretion has been judiciously exercised by the trial Court. It is accordingly directed that time for making of the award shall be deemed to have been extended, in the present case.

The objection of the respondent''s counsel is that the Arbitrator was wrong in disallowing the compensation of Rs. 10.000/- to the respondent. This argument too, is misconceived, as the Court cannot sit as a ''Court of Appeal'' on the award rendered by an Arbitrator.

For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, whereas Civil Revision No. 2353 of 1992 is dismissed but with no order as to costs.