1962 (7) TMI 53 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the reference to arbitration is void on any ground and is not binding on the judgment-debtor.
2. Whether the arbitrator is guilty of any misconduct.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the reference to arbitration is void on any ground and is not binding on the judgment-debtor.

The judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 2, for adjustment of a decree to the extent of Rs. 3,400/- paid to the decree-holder. Both parties agreed that the dispute should be decided by an arbitrator. The judgment-debtor later applied for supersession of the reference, alleging that the dispute was not referable to arbitration during execution proceedings, rendering the arbitration void. The executing Court framed issues to determine the validity of the arbitration reference and any arbitrator misconduct.

The judgment-debtor argued that Section 21 of the Arbitration Act applies to matters in difference in a pending suit, not in execution proceedings. The Court has no jurisdiction to make an order of reference in execution proceedings. The proviso to Section 47 of the Act was also not applicable as no award had been made, and there was no consent from the interested parties.

The Court analyzed the term "suit" in Section 21, noting its broad and narrow meanings. A "suit" generally means a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint. The term "suit" in Section 21 should be understood in its procedural sense, excluding execution proceedings. The Court emphasized that legislative intent should be derived from the clear language of the statute, and courts should not supply omissions or interpret beyond the express words of the law.

The Court referenced various authorities and precedents, concluding that the term "suit" in Section 21 does not include execution proceedings. The reference to arbitration during execution proceedings lacked jurisdiction and was void. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Senior Sub-Judge was set aside.

Issue 2: Whether the arbitrator is guilty of any misconduct.

Given that the reference to arbitration was deemed void and not binding on the judgment-debtor, the issue of arbitrator misconduct became moot. The primary determination of the invalidity of the arbitration reference resolved the matter, making any further discussion on arbitrator misconduct unnecessary.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Senior Sub-Judge dated 3rd December 1960 was set aside. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the appeal and to appear in the trial Court on 13th August 1962 for further proceedings.