9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case may be noted as hereunder : The revision petitioner herein contends that to resolve and settle a dispute with regard to the entitlement of the present petitioner to certain outstanding dues, the parties to the present revision petition had agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, pursuant whereto, the revision petitioner, had appointed one Sri S.K. Jain as its Arbitrator. The Managing Director of the respondent-Board by letter dated 12-12-1996 appointed one Sri K.D. Lahkar as its Arbitrator and both the Arbitrators appointed one Sri Jatin Hazarika, IAS (Retired) as the umpire. According to the revision petitioner, the arbitral Tribunal as constituted above entered into the reference of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs to be paid by the respondent-Board against a Bank guarantee to be furnished by the revision petitioner herein. 3. According to the revision petitioner, the said interim award was not challenged by the respondent-Board by filing an application for setting aside the same as contemplated by section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On expiry of the period of limitation for filing such an application as prescribed by section 34 of the Act, the revision petitioner filed an application for execution of the award, on the basis of which Money Execution Case No. 5 of 1998, was registered in the court of learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in section 34(2) of the Act. Learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case the respondent-Board did not file any application for setting aside the interim award dated 29-2-1998 within the time framed stipulated by section 34 and on expiry of the aforesaid time frame, the interim award dated 23-2-1998 had become executable as a decree of the civil court. This, it is contended, is by virtue of the provisions of section 36 of the Act. Learned counsel has further contended that all the limitations inherent in an executing court to consider the legality of the decree passed would also apply to the court executing an award under section 36. As an executing court cannot go behind the decree to examine its legality or tenability, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuch as reference of the alleged dispute between the parties to Arbitration by the person holding the office of the Managing Director of the respondent-Board at the relevant point of time was wholly unauthorized. It is also submitted by Mr. Choudhury that in the instant case there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and when an award passed is a nullity in law, no application to set aside such an award is contemplated; all objections to the award can be taken at the stage of execution. That apart, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent-Board that the award or the copy of the same furnished to the respondent- Board is without the signatures of all the Arbitrators, it is not properly stamped and is merely the minutes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n understood that while the executing court cannot go behind the decree to determine its legality, objections regarding the validity of the decree has to be decided in an execution proceeding. However, such objections must appear on the face of the record and cannot be left to be determined by a long drawn process either of evidence or reasoning. The same principles of law would undoubtedly apply to the execution of an award under section 36 of the Act. It is also our considered view that the inhibitions that would operate upon the court while executing an award would be some what more in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Act. As section 34 of the Act has enumerated specific grounds on which an application for setting aside of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge for passing the necessary and consequential orders. However, there is one disquieting feature of the case which has come to our notice. The learned District Judge in the impugned judgment dated 21-10-1998 has recorded a finding that the interim award dated 23-2-1998 has not been signed by all the Arbitrators. We have perused the record of the proceeding before the learned District Judge as called for by us. What is disclosed by the record in original is that while the claimant/revision-petitioner has filed a copy of the interim award along with its application for execution, the respondent-Board in the documents filed before the learned District Judge has filed a copy of the award received by it. While the copy of the award filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
