9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The arbitrator made his award on June 4, 1948, and sent a copy thereof to the parties. The respondents thereupon filed a petition under ss. 17 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for a decree in terms of the award. The appellant filed objections thereto, and the petition was then registered as Title Suit No. 53 of 1951. While this suit was pending, the arbitrator who had meantime left for Hong Kong sent to the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ranchi before whom the suit was pending a copy of the award duly signed by him, for being filed as provided in the Act. Notices were issued by the court under s. 14(2) of the Act, and, in answer thereto, the appellant filed an application to set aside the award on various grounds. To this, the respondents filed their reply statement. In view of this application, the respondents did not press their petition tinder ss. 17 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, which was in consequence dismissed, and the proceedings which commenced with the receipt of the award from the arbitrator were continued as Title Suit No. 53 of 1951. After an elaborate trial the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, passed a decree in terms of the award except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention on a notification dated April 1, 1937, issued by the Government of Bihar. That notification, in so far as it is material, is as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 175 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Governor of Bihar is pleased, in supersession of all existing orders, to direct that the undermentioned classes of deeds, contracts and other instrument may be executed on his behalf as follows:- A.In the case of the Public Works Department (subject to any limit fixed by. Departmental orders) 2. All instruments relating to the execution of works of all kinds connected with buildings, bridges, roads, canals, tanks, reservoirs, docks and harbours and embankments, and also instrumets relating By Secretaries to Government, Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Divisional Officers, Sub-divisional Officers, Assistant or Assistant Executive to the construction of water works, sewage works, the n erection of machinery, and the working of coal mines. ........................... Engineers, and the Electric Inspector. ................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the Superintending Engineer whose decision was to be final, and if that had been amended as suggested, the arbitration clause would have become part of the original contract and there would have been no occasion for the present contention. Referring to the above suggestion for amending the agreement, the Secretary, Mr. Murrel, wrote on September 5, 1947, to Col. Smith that the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer would have to be got. On January 19, 1948, Col. Smith wrote to the Secretary that he was ready to take up his duties as arbitrator and again desired that the contract should be amended so as to provide for arbitration. On January 27, 1948, the Secretary to the Government informed Col. Smith that opinion had been received from the Legal Remembrancer that an agreement for arbitration should be executed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act and that a draft agreement (copy enclosed) has been drawn up accordingly and steps are being taken to execute it, as quickly as possible On the same date, the Executive Engineer wrote to the respondents as follows:- It has since been decided by Government to determine your claims in connection with the above thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cter, we should not travel outside it and find authority in a person who is not authorised thereunder. But s. 175(3) does not prescribe any particular mode in which authority must be conferred. Normally, no doubt, such conferment will be by notification in the Official Gazette, but there is nothing in the section itself to preclude authorisation being conferred ad hoc on any person, and when that is established the requirements of the section must be held to be satisfied. In the result, we hold that the agreement dated February 6, 1948, was executed by a person who was authorised to do so by the Governor, and in consequence there was a valid reference to arbitration. It is next contended that as the copy of the award in court was unstamped, no decree could have been passed thereon. The facts are that the arbitrator ,sent to each of the parties a copy of the award signed by him and a third copy also signed by him was sent to the court. The copy of the award which was sent to the Government would appear to have been insufficiently stamped. If that had been produced in court, it could have been validated on payment of the deficiency and penalty under s. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
