Forgot password
1996 (1) TMI 463 - SC - Indian Laws
Issues:
Property dispute referred to arbitration, failure to file the award in court, application for decree after a long lapse of time, duty of arbitrator to file the award, circumvention of law by the arbitrator and parties.
Analysis:
The case involved a property dispute between the appellants and respondents, which was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator made an award in 1986, but it was not filed in court by either party within the stipulated time frame. The Arbitrator, after a significant delay of six years, filed the award in court and applied for a decree in terms of the award, which was granted by the Civil Judge. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the Arbitrator's actions after such a long delay.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Arbitrator had the authority to file the award and request a decree after such a substantial lapse of time, especially when neither party had taken steps to file the award earlier. The Court noted that there was no specific provision in the Arbitration Act requiring the Arbitrator to file the award in court suo moto. The Arbitrator's actions were deemed questionable, as he appeared to align with one party by seeking a decree long after the expiration of the time limit for filing the award.
The Court held that the Arbitrator's application for filing the award and seeking a decree, made after the statutory time limit, was impermissible. It was observed that the law should not be circumvented, and parties should not be allowed to obtain orders indirectly that they could not secure directly. The Court emphasized the importance of seeking remedies promptly and within the prescribed legal framework.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree passed by the Civil Judge and the High Court's order. The Court ruled that the actions taken by the Arbitrator and the parties to obtain the decree were not in accordance with the law, and there would be no order as to costs in this matter.
9911796707
Advanced Search 
