- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13/7/1990 of the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1054 of 1990 passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 quashing the proceedings of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharntari, dated7/9/1989 in Cri. Case No. 943 of 1989 registered under Section 397 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. While Special Leave Petition (Cri. ) No. 1971 of 1990 is pending, by consent of parties, this court on 1/8/1991 made a reference to Justice Shiv Dayal (retired chief justice of the Madhya Pradesh High court and a Sr. Adv. of this Bar) to adjudicate the disputes thus : May be appointed as an Arbitrator, by consent, to go into the question as to the amounts due, if any, by the petitioner to the second respondent or vice versa, in respect of Truck No. MKS 931 1. " (The other clauses of reference are not material, hence omitted).
(2.) The Arbitrator entered upon the reference within the time and gave his award on 31/12/1992 holding thus : "Final answer to the reference is Anoop Chand (Respondent 5 in the SLP) shall pay to Sukalu Ram and Basant Kumar (Partnership) or to Basant Kumar, Managing Agent a sum of Rs. 2,25,839. 00 only as on 1/8/1991, the date of their Lordships' order. B. * * *the Arbitrator filed the Award in this court with notice to the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner and Respondent 5, Anoop Chand Setia, filed their objections. Since the proceedings are pending in this court by operation of Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short 'the Act', reference could be treated to be a reference made in a pending suit. On that premise when the parties had consented to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator had given the Award as indicated hereinbefore. The petitioner had not made any application for remittance of the Award to the Arbitrator though claimed higher amount by way of objections nor is an application made to make the Award, a rule of the court. Respondent 5, Anoop Chand Setia, objected to the Award under Section 30 contending that the Award is without jurisdiction and patent error of law has crept in, since Respondent 5 was not a party to the reference. The Award is devoid of jurisdiction to make him liable to the petitioner in the Award. Anoop Chand Setia's objection could be treated to be one under Section 30 of the Act. It is seen that the reference was only to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and Vinod Jain, the second respondent, of the respective liabilities and vice versa.
(3.) It is contended by Shri C. L. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner that when the issues were settled by the Arbitrator with consent of parties including Anoop Chand, they have agreed for reference of the specified issues as indicated in para 1.2 of the Award, to be decided including the additional issues, sought to be raised but given up, the Arbitrator found from the dispute as disclosed from the evidence placed before him that Basant Kumar was a managing agent of the petitioner and that, they are entitled to the amount awarded under the Award. Anoop Chand was found liable to pay the amount under the hire-purchase agreement and that, therefore, the Arbitrator was justified in granting the amount.;