9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (4) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant. By one of them he directed a sum of Rs. 3,67,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant on or before the 19th of August, 1949, with interest thereafter at 6 per cent per annum in case of default. By the other he directed a sum of Rs. 83,000 to be similarly paid by the respondent to the appellant. He is said to have made over each of the two awards, in original, to each of the parties. On the 10th of August, 1949, the respondent filed an application under section 14, sub- section (2), of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, before the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gauhati in Assam praying that the umpire, Mr. Chowdhury, might be directed to file both the awards in court so that the petitioner might get an opportunity for filing objections thereto. On this application notice was issued to the umpire to file the awards into that court before the 24th of August 1949. The umpire sent a letter dated 18th August, 1949, to the Subordinate Judge, which is as follows with copies of the awards:- "Dear Sir, With reference to your notice in money suit No. 63 of 1949 requiring me to submit the awards made by me in the above mentioned dispute on 20th July, 1949, I beg t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent on the 2nd of September, 1949. Thus in respect of these awards, proceedings were initiated purporting to be under section 14 (2) of the Indian Arbitration Act simultaneously both in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gauhati in Assam as well as on the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta. The appellant in answer to the notice issued by the Gauhati court on 3rd September, 1949, appeared before that court on 28th October, 1949, and obtained adjournments from time to time until 10th December, 1949. On that date the Gauhati court rejected his prayer for any further adjournment and fixed 20th January,' 1950, for an exparte hearing. Meanwhile, the respondent after receiving the notice issued to him by the Calcutta High Court filed, on the 24th of November, 1949, an affidavit dated the 15th of November, 1949, stating his objections to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Court and to the validity of the awards. On the same date a counter affidavit thereto dated the 19th of November, 1949, was filed on behalf of the appellant. On these affidavits the matter was taken up for consideration by the Commercial Judge of the Calcutta High Court on the 16th of -December, 1949. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14, sub- section (2) (as distinct from when the application for the filing of the award was first presented). In this view, the learned Judge held on the facts that the award must be taken to have been filed earlier in the Calcutta court and not in the Gauhati court. He accordingly held that the Calcutta High Court had exclusive jurisdiction having regard to section 31 (3), and hence proceeded to judgement on the award, the respondent not having filed any objections before him in time. On appeal, the learned Judges considered it unnecessary for them to dispose of the case on either of the above grounds considered by the single Judge, and held that on the facts it was quite clear that there had been no due filing of the award at all in the Calcutta court under section 14 (2) inasmuch as the awards which were claimed to have been duly filed were, in fact,not filed by the umpire; nor was it shown that they were filed under his authority. On this limited ground they reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and vacated the judgment given in favour of the appellant on the basis of the two awards. Hence these two appeals to us. On the, facts stated above three questions arise fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Judges in coming to the contrary conclusion relied on two facts, namely, that the umpire in his letter to the Gauhati court dated 18th August, 1949, when sending copies of the awards in compliance with the notice issued to him by that court merely stated that he handed over the awards to both the parties, but did not say that he authorised any of them to file the same into court on his behalf. The learned Judges were also of the opinion that the umpire as a person of commonsense could not be supposed to have authorised both the parties to file the awards into Court on his behalf. We are inclined to agree with this reasoning. Where, as in this case, the originals are said to have been handed over to both the parties, it cannot be assumed that the mere handing over of the awards to the parties necessarily im- plies the authority of the umpire to file the same into court on his behalf. That authority has to be specifically alleged and proved. In the present case the statement in the affidavit relied on by learned counsel before us is no more than ail assertion that the umpire handed over the original awards to the appellant for filing, but there is no allegation that they were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by the solicitors on behalf of the appellant with a letter which might be treated as the initial application to the court, there is not a word to suggest that the awards were being filed under the authority of the umpire. The letter contained only a bald statement that the two original awards duly signed by the umpire were enclosed therewith for filing, with a request to direct the office to file the two awards and to issue notices in respect thereof expeditiously. In those circumstances, there has been clearly no sufficient compliance with the terms of section 14, sub-section (2) of the Act to constitute the filing of the awards by the appellant's solicitors the filing thereof by the umpire. As regards the second question, namely, as to whether with reference to the terms of section 31, subsection (3) the awards should be held to have been filed earlier in the Calcutta court -or in the Gauhati court, the view taken by the learned Commercial Judge was that the filing in the Calcutta court must be taken to have been earlier. For the purpose of the consideration of this question it may be assumed that filing was under the authority of the umpire. The learned Judge was of the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been contradicted on behalf of the appellant in the counter-affidavit filed on the same day. From these facts, it is clear that the earlier filing for the purposes of section 31(3) is in the Gauhati court and not in the Calcutta court as held by the learned single Judge under an erroneous impression as to the facts. We may as well mention At this stage that it was not suggested before us that for legal purposes the filing of the awards in the Calcutta High Court (on the assumption of existence of authority in the appellant for such filing on behalf of the umpire) is not the 29th of August, 1949, but only the 10th of August when the letter was sent by the solicitors to the Registrar enclosing the awards. We mention this because it appears from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that some such point was raised there, but before us the contrary was assumed. We are accordingly of the opinion that even if the authority of the umpire for the filing of the award into court on his behalf by the appellant is to be taken for granted, it was in the Gauhati court that the awards must be taken to have been filed earlier. On this ground, therefore, we are inclined to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court". Sub-section (1) relates to the question as to where a completed award has to be filed, and prescribes the local jurisdiction for that purpose. Sub-section (2) deals with the ambit of the exercise of that jurisdiction, and declares it to be exclusive by saying that "all questions regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award or arbitration agreement between the parties to the agreement or persons claiming under them shall be decided by the Court in which the award under the agreement has been, or may be, filed and by no other Court". Sub-section (3) is intended to provide that all applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings are to be made only in one court, and lays on the concerned party the obligation to do so. Then comes sub-section (4), the object of which apparently is to go further than sub- section (3), that is, not merely casting on the party concerned an obligation to file all applications in one court but vesting exclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, therefore, have been, plausibly, suggested that sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) refer only to this class. But no such position was taken up before us. Indeed, having regard to the wide language employed in these sub-sections it has been assumed that sub-sections (2) and (3) cover all three classes in all their stages. If so, is there any sufficient reason to think that sub-section (4) was meant to have a very restricted operation ? On the view of this sub-section suggested for the appellant, not only would an application made after the award was pronounced be excluded from sub- section (4) but also an application made before the commencement of the arbitration, i.e., for the filing of an agreement of reference and for a direction thereupon. It must be remembered that section 31 is one of the group of sections headed " General " which by virtue of section 26 are applicable to all arbitrations. Unless therefore the wording in sub-section (4) of section 31 is so compelling as to confine the scope thereof to applications during the pendency of an arbitration, such a limited construction must be rejected. As already stated, the entire basis of the limited construction is the meaning o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
