TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , signed by two out of the three arbitrators as the third arbitrator had refused to sign the award. The award was filed in court on September 7, 1957 and the respondents prayed for a decree in accordance with the award. Notice of filing of the award was issued to the appellant and was served upon him on September 30, 1957. On November 3, 1957, the appellant filed an objection in the nature of a written statement. By this objection the appellant attacked the validity of the award on various grounds. But the objection did not contain any prayer at the end, nor did it indicate what relief the appellant desired, though there were as many as 43 paragraphs therein. When the matter came to be heard in the trial court, the respondents contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant it would not be necessary to go into other points. It seems therefore that other points were not pressed before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the award could not be set aside on grounds which fell under s. 30 of the Act, except on an application under s. 33 of the Act within thirty days of the service of notice of filing of the award as required by Art. 158 of the Limitation Act. The High Court further held that the objection of the appellant could not be treated as an application under s. 33, as, if it was treated as such application, it would be barred by time. The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal, but granted a certificate to the appellant to appeal to this Court. We have heard lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material for our purpose. Section 5 lays down that the authority of an appointed arbitrator or umpire shall not be revocable except with the leave of the court, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement. Section 8 gives power to court to. appoint an arbitrator or umpire in certain circumstances. Section 11 gives power to court to remove an arbitrator or umpire in certain circumstances and s. 12 gives consequential power to court to appoint persons to fill vacancies which may have arisen. Section 13 provides for powers of the arbitrators and s. 14 provides for the award to be signed and filed. When the award is filed the court has to give no ice to the parties of the filing of the award under s. 14(2). Under s. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re from s. 17 that an application to set aside the award is contemplated therein and it is only when no such application has been made within the time allowed or if such an application has been filed and has been rejected that the court proceeds to pronounce judgment in terms of the award. The Act therefore contemplates the making of an application to set aside an award and the grounds on which such an application can be made are to be found in s. 30. The grounds on which an application can be made for setting aside the award are-(a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings, (b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed after the period of limitation it cannot be treated as an application to set aside the award, for if it is so treated it will be barred by limitation. It is not in dispute in the present case that the objections raised by the appellant were covered by S. 30 of the Act, and though the appellant did not pray for setting aside the award in his objection that was what he really wanted the court to do after hearing his objection. As in the present case the objection was filed more than 30 days after the notice it could not be treated as an application for setting the award, for it would then be barred by limitation. The position thus is that in the present case there was no application to set aside the award as grounds mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mars case(A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 243) it was observed that if the award directs a party to do an act which is prohibited by law or if it is otherwise patently illegal or void it would be open to the court to consider this patent defect in the award suo motu, and when the court acts suo motu no question of limitation prescribed by Art. 158 can arise . These observations only show that the court can act suo motu in certain circumstances which do not fall within s. 30 of the Act. Saha Co.'s case(1) was a decision of five Judges by a majority of 3 : 2 and the majority judgment is against the appellant. The minority judgment certainly takes the view that the non-existence or invalidity of an arbitration agreement and an order of reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
