1953 (4) TMI 20 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the appellant had the authority of the umpire to file the awards on his behalf into court in terms of section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act? Whether in view of subsection (3) of section 31 of the Act it can be said that the awards were filed in the Calcutta High Court earlier than in the Gauhati court? Whether the scope of section 31 sub-section (4) of the Act is limited to applications under the Act during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings only? Held that - Section 31 (4) would vest exclusive jurisdiction in the court in which an application for the filing of an award has been first made under section 14 of the Act. It is undisputed that the application by the respondent Union of India was made before the Gauhati court on the 10th August 1949 and the earliest move by the appellant before the Calcutta court was on the 17th August 1949. All these facts and on the view of the interpretation of section.31 sub-section (4) which we are inclined to take it is clear that the Gauhati court only has the jurisdiction and not the Calcutta High Court as regards the present dispute. In the result the two appeals must be dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to file awards under section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act.
2. Jurisdiction under section 31(3) of the Indian Arbitration Act.
3. Scope of section 31(4) of the Indian Arbitration Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority to File Awards Under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act:
The primary issue was whether the appellant had the authority of the umpire to file the awards in court. Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act mandates that "the arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the court... cause the award or a signed copy of it... to be filed in court." The court found that mere handing over of the awards to the parties does not imply authority to file them on behalf of the umpire. The appellant's affidavit did not categorically allege that the awards were handed over for filing on behalf of the umpire, and there was no evidence to support such authority. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no sufficient compliance with section 14(2) to constitute the filing of the awards by the appellant's solicitors as the filing by the umpire.

2. Jurisdiction Under Section 31(3) of the Indian Arbitration Act:
The second issue was whether the awards were filed earlier in the Calcutta High Court or the Gauhati court. Section 31(3) states that "all applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been, or may be, filed." The court found that the awards were filed in the Gauhati court on 24th August 1949 when the umpire sent signed copies in compliance with the court's notice. In contrast, the Calcutta High Court treated the awards as filed only on 29th August 1949. Thus, the Gauhati court had earlier jurisdiction under section 31(3).

3. Scope of Section 31(4) of the Indian Arbitration Act:
The third issue was whether section 31(4) applies only to applications made during the pendency of arbitration proceedings. Section 31(4) specifies that "where in any reference an application under the Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference." The court interpreted "in any reference" as "in the matter of a reference to arbitration," which includes applications made after the arbitration is completed. Therefore, the Gauhati court, where the first application was made on 10th August 1949, had exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Gauhati court had exclusive jurisdiction under section 31(3) and section 31(4) of the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellant failed to prove the authority of the umpire to file the awards in the Calcutta High Court, and the awards were filed earlier in the Gauhati court. Thus, the Gauhati court alone had jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings.

← Previous Next →