9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1994. Thus, the view taken by the Trial Court on this aspect also appear to us to be correct. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly ordered the award dated 28-1-1994 to be the rule of the Court except for item No. 1 and in respect of which the award dated 26-11-1992 was ordered to be the rule of the Court. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 26-3-1999 - DR. J.S. ANAND AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ. JUGDMENT Babu, J. - Leave granted. 2. In relation to the construction of high level bridge over river Chaggar on Pehawa Road at Devigarh, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondents. The disputes between them arose in respect of certain claims made by the appellant and the matter was referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for item No. 1 for which interim award has already been granted. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed by holding that the Trial Court fell in error in making the interim award the rule of the Court, which was superseded by the final award made on 28-1-1994. 4. In these appeals by special leave, the appellant contended that on the award being made by the arbitrator in so far as item No. 1 was concerned, it became final but the High Court lost sight of the fact that it was not open to the arbitrator to revise the award made by him earlier as he had become functus officio . It is submitted that the High Court erred in holding that the award made on 26-11-1992 was not pronounced though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rbitrator has mentioned as under : "The Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 2 PWD B R Branch, Patiala informed during the hearing on 2-12-1992 that the Hon ble High Court heard the case on 23-11-1992 and subsequently on 2-12-1992 and stayed the operation of the arbitration proceedings. In view of the order of the learned Court dated 23-9-1992, the proceedings were taken up and both parties appeared on various dates. After hearing the parties and as per the directions regarding the finalisation of the interim award, as the case in respect of item No. 1 was heard and was considered to announce interim award but in view of the stay granted on 2-12-1992, which was informed by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 2, Patiala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livery of the award are different stages of an arbitration proceeding. An award is made when it is authenticated by the person who makes it. The word made suggests that the mind of the arbitrator as being declared and it is validly deemed to be pronounced as soon as the arbitrator has signed it and once an award has been given by the arbitrator, he becomes functus officio . If this is the position in law, it becomes difficult to support the view taken by the High Court in stating that the interim award was not pronounced though it was made and signed by the arbitrator. If he had made the award, the question of superseding the same could not arise. Therefore, the view of the High Court appears to us to be fallacious. 8. On this aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ward can be postponed. That award does not become invalid because notice of the making of it has not been given. An arbitrator is entitled to file an award in Court under section 14, sub-section (2). If he does so, the Court is bound to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award." 9. The circumstances in which these observations are made by the Court are as follows. The arbitrators had made and signed an award on 11-1-1994 which was registered on 13-1-1994. Thereafter, the arbitrators made a second award on 26-1-1994. It was contended that as they did not pronounce the award by issuing a notice of having signed it, they had not become functus officio and could, therefore, make and deliver the second award dated 26-1-1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an arbitrator having signed his award becomes functus officio but that did not mean that in no circumstances could there by further arbitration proceedings where an award was set aside or that the same arbitrator could nerve have anything to do with the award with respect to the same dispute. Thus, in the present case, it was not open to the arbitrator to re-determine the claim and make an award. Therefore, the view taken by the Trial Court that the earlier award made and written though signed was not pronounced but nevertheless had become complete and final, therefore, should be made the rule of the Court appears to us to be correct with regard to item No. 1 inasmuch as the claim in relation to item No. 1 could not have been adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
