9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e held inter-alia that the award dated February 27, 1959 was invalid on the ground, firstly, that the award had been passed after the prescribed period for making the award and secondly that the reference agreement was defective on account of vagueness and uncertainty. Hari Krishna Wattal filed an appeal in the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the trial-court on the two above grounds and superseded the reference. It is contended by Mr. Sharma that both the Courts were in error in holding that the award was invalid on the aforesaid grounds. Ex. 13 is the agreement to refer the disputes between the, parties. The agreement is dated 5-2-1958 and the award, as already stated, was made much beyond four months from the date of the reference. Prima-facie it will be invalid unless the time for enlargement for making the award was legally extended. It is contended for the appellant that the time had been legally extended by the mutual written consent of the parties and hence the award was not liable to be set aside. It will appear from the record that the time was extended not less than six times. The first extension was from 31-5-1958 to 31-7-1958 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, shall be void and of no effect. The High Court was of the opinion that there are only two methods for enlarging the time. The first method is securing an order from the Court and the second method is to stipulate in the arbitration agreement for extension of time by a subsequent agreement. The High Court held that the general plan of section 28 suggested that the Legislature did not contemplate any third method for extension of time. Since, in the present case, the arbitration agreement itself did not stipulate for extension of time by a subsequent agreement and there was no order of a Court extending the time the award was invalid. The question depends upon the true construction of section 28. There is no doubt that the Arbitrator is expected to make Ms award within four months of his entering on the reference or on his being called upon to act or within such extended time as the Court may allow. Reading clause 3 of the Schedule along with section 28 one finds that the power to enlarge the time is vested in the Court and not in the Arbitrator. Clause 3 and section 28(1) exclude by necessary implication the power of the Arbitrator to enlarge the time. This is emphasis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to make a binding award on an agreement between the parties to refer a dispute to him. The agreement between the parties is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Like any contract by mutual consent of the parties, the terms of the contract can be modified. Even in a case where the Arbitrator enters on the reference on an invalid agreement it is open to the parties to enter into a fresh agreement to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator while it is pending adjudication and in such an event the proceedings before the Arbitrator can be upheld as referable to that agreement and the award will not be open to attack as without jurisdiction. See : Beverly Jule Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon Com. (India) Privdte Ltd.( [1963] 3 S. C. R. 209, 226) Such being the power of mutual consent of the parties in the sphere of arbitration one does not see why by mutual agreement the parties cannot enlarge the time for making the award when the Arbitrator has entered on the reference and is proceeding with the arbitration. In our view, therefore, section 28(2) does not provide that the Arbitration agreement alone should stipulate that the Arbitrator may extend the time on a subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wattal and Co. not only from 1-5-55 but also for any such earlier period as the arbitrator thinks fit. 3. That the Arbitrator shall be entitled to hear and determine the other grievances of the parties, if any. 4. That the Arbitrator shall determine the amount payable by one party to the other after taking into consideration the sums due to or due by the second party or his sons including Ravindra Brothers from or to the first party respectively. L373Sup CI/74 We have failed to understand what was vague and uncertain about the agreement. It appears from the record that the Arbitrator had called upon Wattal to formulate his claims and then replies on behalf of Pandya were duly filed. Accounts were inspected from time to time by Pandya, full opportunity being given to him to do so as per the reference agreement itself. Arguments were also filed in writing by both the sides. It does not appear that any complaint was made on behalf of the parties before the Arbitrator about anything vague or uncertain in the agreement. Once it is remembered that the arbitration was with reference to the business of Wattal Co. of which the parties were the partners, it is clear that the four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
