BABUBHAI VANMALIDAS MEHTA Vs. PRABHOD PRANSHANKAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for setting aside an award and although there are numerous grounds on which the validity of the award has been challenged in the view that I take of one of these grounds, viz. , that the award has not been made within the time allowed by law, it does not become necessary to set out the various grounds or deal with them. I may also mention -- that in addition to the grounds taken in the petition a submission in law was made at the hearing of this petition that the award is outside the scope of the terms of reference and is therefore void. That again is a matter which it is unnecessary for me to determine on this petition having regard to the opinion I have formed as to this award having been made beyond time.

(2.) A few dates that are material are these. On 14-12-1953 the Petitioner and the Respondent signed a submission paper and two persons were appointed as arbitrators, viz. , Mr. D. Harkare and Mr. I. P. Joshi. The Petitioner and the Respondent filed their respective statements before the paid arbitrators who also held a meeting on 5-1-1954. Thereafter the said D. Harkare left Bombay; and on 10-3-1954 the Petitioner received a letter from the Respondent dated 6-3-1954 that as the said Harkare had neglected to work as co-arbitrator and as the Petitioner had failed to appoint another in his place the said Joshi shall act as the sole arbitrator. On llth March a notice was given to the Petitioner of a meeting to be held by the sole arbitrator on the 14th March but that was adjourned and the first meeting. before the arbitrator was held on the 28th March. It appears from the minutes of the arbitrator which have been filed that on this date P. P. Joshi, the Respondent, wanted an adjournment for a couple of days to engage his legal adviser as the other side had engaged one and the adjournment was granted and the proceedings were adjourned to the 30th March. When the meeting of the 30th March was held, a copy of the Respondent's statement was given to the Petitioner and it was directed that the Petitioner should give to the attorneys of the Respondent his own statement in reply by Friday the 9th April and the next meeting was adjourned to the llth April. Thereafter the present petitioner file a petition in this Court for setting aside the appointment of the sole arbitrator, and pending the disposal of this petition nothing further was done in the arbitration proceedings. This petition was dismissed on the 19th July 1954 and-Mr. Joshi, the sole arbitrator, fixed the next meeting on 24-7-1954, which meeting was adjourned-to the 28th July 1954. There are in the minutes of the arbitrator minutes of the proceedings of 28-7-1954 which lasted from 7-30 to 8-5 p. m. The award is alleged to have been made on 20-11-1s54. Although Jt is engrossed on a stamp paper which was purchased on 9-2-1955 and bears under the signature of the arbitrator the date 20-2-1955, for the purposes of this decision of the only issue that I am determining as to whether the award has been made in time, I will assume that the award was made on the date on which it purports to have been made i. e. , on 20-11-1954.

(3.) NOW, under S. 3 of the First Schedule to the Indian Arbitration Act an award must be made within 4 months after entering on the reference, and the question. for determination before me is when did the sole arbitrator, Mr. Joshi, enter on the reference. It is urged by the Petitioner that he entered on the reference when he accepted the appointment of sole arbitrator, or in any event that he did so on 28-3-1954 when he held the first meeting, whilst it is the case of the Respondent that the sole arbitrator entered upon the reference only on 28-7-1954 when he started hearing the matter on the merits.