9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivered only 464 M. Tons of wires Disputes arose between the parties on account of non-delivery of remaining 416 M. Tons of wires, and ultimately the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. O.P. Khaitan and Mr. J.C. Kalra. They, however, differed in their opinion and as such matter was referred to Mr. A.B.N. Sinha, retired Judge of the Patna High Court as Umpire. But he died affter some proceedings has taken place. So the matter was referred to Mr. H.R. Khanna, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. By his award dt. 16th May, 1980, the Umpire held that the claimant, Haryana State Electricity Board, was entitled to recover Rs. 1,72,500 as damages from the company. The award was read over and announced on the same day of the counsels f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and directed the ITO to allow the assessee-company's claim for deduction of Rs. 1,72,500. Being aggrieved, the Department preferred this appeal. 3. The departmental representative contended that under the provisions of s. 17 unless a judgment is pronounced in accordance with the award and a decree is made, the award remains unenforceable and as such the liability, if any, under the award was a contingent liability. In support of his contention he relied on s. 17 and the decision in the case of A.P.S. Cold Storage Ice Factory vs. CIT, Lucknow (1979) 119 ITR 709 (All). He also submitted that the decision in the cases of CIT vs. Mathulal Baldeo Prasad (1961) 42 ITR 517 (All), CIT vs. Shewbux Jahurilal (1962) 46 ITR 688 (Cal) and Satish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the assessee-company. 5. There is no doubt that r. 7 of the First Schedule of the Act lays down that 'the award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively'. But this does not provide that the award though final shall become executable or enforceable as soon as it is made as contended by the authorised representative for the assessee. Sec. 30 enumerates the grounds on which an award can be set aside. Sec. 33 lays down the manner for challenging the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, or for determining the effect thereof. But s. 17 lays down what shall follow on filing of an award in the Court. The said section runs as follow: "Where the Court sees no cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and their representatives, but it does not lay down that it becomes enforceable without a judgment having been pronounced and decree made in accordance with s. 17. It is to be remembered that under s. 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, the award itself was enforceable. Sec 15 of the said Act, runs as follows: "15. Award when filed to be enforceable as a decree.—(1) An award on a submission, on being filed in the Court in accordance with the foregoing provisions, shall (unless the Court remits it to the reconsideration of the arbitrators or umpire, or sets it aside) be enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court. (2) An award may be conditional or in the alternative. So under sub-s. (1) of s. 15 of the said Act the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a decree follows the judgment so pronounced. Only thereafter the decree can be executed in accordance with the provisions of the CPC. So there cannot be any doubt that under the present Act, an award is not enforceable till a judgment is pronounced as was the situation under s. 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act. If the Legislature desired that the award shall be enforceable, we do not find any reason why the language of s. 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899 would have been changed and the present language adopted both in the CPC 1908 and in the present Act. In similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court held in the case of A.P.S. Cold Storage Ice Factory that in the present case, although the Arbitrators had given their award, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of payment of the amount. There is no doubt that the decision in the case of Kedar Nath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. does not deal with the enforceability of an award as is the dispute in the present appeal. 8. The authorised representative for the assessee drew our attention to the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Kumar Ors. "....In our opinion this judgment lays down that the position under the Act is in no way different from what it was before the Act came into force, and that an award has some legal force and is not a mere waste paper. If the award in question is not a mere waste paper but has some legal effects it plainly purports to or affects property within the meaning of s. 17(1)(b) of the Registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
