State of Haryana vs Brish Bhan

Special leave granted.

It appears that pursuant to an agreement between the parties and when disputes had arisen, on 13th October, 1992 an Arbitrator was appointed. The (sic) entered upon the reference on 21.12.1992 and thereafter the parties (sic) agreed to extend the time to (sic) the Arbitrator to make the award. The last extension expired on 6th February, 1994 whereupon the Appellant (sic) an application u/s 28 of (sic) Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 praying (sic) extension of time so as to enable the (sic) to make the award.

The application was opposed, but an order dated 28th November, 1997 Additional Civil Judge, Narwana (sic) the application thereby enabling the (sic) to make the award within the (sic) period of four months from that(sic).

The said decision was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Jind. The appeal of the Respondent was allowed on two grounds. Firstly, it was held that there was no proper agreement between the parties. Secondly, it was held that the tender form had been offered and the same was accepted by the Department on 3rd November, 1989 and the application filed u/s 28 on 16th March, 1994 was barred by time. Against the order of the Additional District Judge, the Appellant moved the High Court by filing a revision petition which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

We are astonished to see the second reason given by the lower Appellate Court in allowing the Respondent''s appeal. The application u/s 28 was for extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to make the award. The Arbitrator had already entered upon the reference on 21.12.1993 and the question of an application being filed u/s 28 within three years of the date of the agreement can never arise. The point in issue was whether further four months'' time should have been granted or not and the reasoning of the Additional District Judge, Jind is clearly fallacious. Moreover, he had no jurisdiction while dealing with an application u/s 28 for extension of time to decide whether there was a valid arbitration agreement or not. It was not an application u/s 33 which was before him. The order of the Additional District Judge being clearly contrary to law, the High Court erred in upholding the same on the facts and circumstances of this case. We are of the opinion that the extension sought for should have been granted and order of the Trial Court is correct. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the. decisions of the lower Appellate Court and the High Court. The result of this is that the application u/s 28 of the Department stands allowed and four months'' time from the date of the communication of this order, is granted to the Arbitrator to make the award.