Skip to content


Gulab Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Arbitration;Civil
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.A. (F) 1 (K) of 1981
Judge
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 17; Administration of Justice Rules, 1937 - Rule 34
AppellantGulab Chand Jain
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
Appellant AdvocateC.K. Sharma Baruah, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.N. Chetia, Standing Counsel
Prior history
Lahiri, J.
1. We find that the Paper Book has not been prepared However, Sri C. K. Sharma Baruah. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the matter may be heard and disposed of dispensing with the Paper Book, Shri S. N. Chetia, standing counsel for Union of India, concurs. Counsel for both the parties agree that the matter may be heard and disposed of today. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the matter as agreed upon by counsel for the parties.
2. The impugned orders were ma
Excerpt:
- .....competent decree which, in fact, were never in existence. this position is also not denied by the learned counsel. 3. under these circumstances the present application under rule 34 of the rules for administration of justice and police in nagaland, 1937 fas amended) is not competent. as no judgment was rendered and the follow up decree prepared, as required under section 17 of the act, the orders rendered by the court are, therefore, premature. however, we do not express any opinion whether the impugned orders of the learned addl. commissioner. kohima were correct or not if the learned addl. deputy commissioner, kohima considers that the supplementary award was legal and justified he shall be at liberty to render judgment accordingly. thereupon he shall direct a decree to be drawn up in.....
Judgment:

Lahiri, J.

1. We find that the Paper Book has not been prepared However, Sri C. K. Sharma Baruah. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the matter may be heard and disposed of dispensing with the Paper Book, Shri S. N. Chetia, standing counsel for Union of India, concurs. Counsel for both the parties agree that the matter may be heard and disposed of today. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the matter as agreed upon by counsel for the parties.

2. The impugned orders were made as if there was a valid and existing decree passed in accordance with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. 1940, for short 'the Act.' The arbitrator made an award found certain errors in it and informed the court clarifying the error he had committed while making the award. The court entertained it but did not proceed to pronounce any judgment nor did he pass any decree as required under Section 17 of the Act. The appellant assumed that there was a valid and existing judgment followed by a valid and competent decree which, in fact, were never in existence. This position is also not denied by the learned counsel.

3. Under these circumstances the present application under Rule 34 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 fas amended) is not competent. As no judgment was rendered and the follow up decree prepared, as required under Section 17 of the Act, the orders rendered by the court are, therefore, premature. However, we do not express any opinion whether the impugned orders of the learned Addl. Commissioner. Kohima were correct or not if the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kohima considers that the supplementary award was legal and justified he shall be at liberty to render judgment accordingly. Thereupon he shall direct a decree to be drawn up in terms of his judgment as required under Section 17 of 'the Act.'

4. For the reasons set forth above and as desired by the learned counsel for the parties, we remit the matter to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kohima to render a judgment in terms of the award and/or supplementary award at an early date and thereafter he shrill proceed to prepare a decree in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act.'

5. In the result the appeal is disposed of in terms of our above direction. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to cost.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //