Skip to content


Digambari Bewa Vs. Joy Narayan Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.223
AppellantDigambari Bewa
RespondentJoy Narayan Das
Cases ReferredRaja Har Narain Singh v. Chaudhrain Bhagwant Kuar
Excerpt:
arbitration - award--extension of time after filing of award, if can be granted--objection not taken in court below--objection apparent on fact of record--pleadings. - .....the award be kept on the record and the case put up on the 19th april for disposal. on the latter date, a decree was made in accordance with the award. in our opinion, it is manifest that the award was made without authority and could not be used as the basis for a valid decree. it has been argued, however, by the learned vakil for the opposite party that this objection was not taken in the court below. that is obviously immaterial. the objection was apparent on the face of the record and went to the root of the matter; it was incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself that a legal' award existed whereon a valid decree could be founded. it is further clear that no extension of time was allowed on the 3rd april 1912 and none could be granted, directly or by implication, on the 19th april.....
Judgment:

1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree made in accordance with an arbitrate award, on the ground that the award was made after expiry of the time prescribed by the Court. The matter in controversy between the parties was referred to arbitrators on the 29th February 1912 and they were directed to submit their award on or before the 15th March. On that date an application for further time was received from one of the arbitrators No express order for extension of time was made, but the case was adjourned to the 3rd April and a direction was given that this should be intimated to the arbitrators. This may be taken as au order for extension of time by implication. On the 3rd April, both the parties were absent; their Pleaders intimated to the Court that they had no instructions and that nothing had been received from the arbitrators. The Court ordered that the suit do stand adjourned till the 9th April for disposal; the parties to be ready with their evidence if no award was filed in Court on or before that date; the Court further directed the arbitrators to return the papers, with or without their award, on or before that date. On the 9th April it was intimated that the arbitrators had submitted their award, whereupon the Court directed that the award be kept on the record and the case put up on the 19th April for disposal. On the latter date, a decree was made in accordance with the award. In our opinion, it is manifest that the award was made without authority and could not be used as the basis for a valid decree. It has been argued, however, by the learned Vakil for the opposite party that this objection was not taken in the Court below. That is obviously immaterial. The objection was apparent on the face of the record and went to the root of the matter; it was incumbent upon the Court to satisfy itself that a legal' award existed whereon a valid decree could be founded. It is further clear that no extension of time was allowed on the 3rd April 1912 and none could be granted, directly or by implication, on the 19th April 1912, after the arbitrators had made and filed their award. Raja Har Narain Singh v. Chaudhrain Bhagwant Kuar 13 A. 300 : 18 I.A. 55. The arbitrators commenced their proceedings on the 6th April 1912 and made their award two days later. These proceedings, taken after the expiry of the prescribed period, were thus obviously infructuous; and their award, made without authority, could not be made the basis for a valid decree.

2. The result is that this Rule is made absolute, the decree of the Court below set aside, and the case remanded for trial in Court. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this Rule. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur.


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