- (1.) This is an application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside an award made and published by an Arbitrator appointed under an Order of this Court, and who was an officer of the petitioner, on 1st March 2004.
(2.) These disputes between the parties have spread over twenty years and this arbitration has engaged the attention of this Court for nearly eighteen years, with little respites in between. Before I proceed further, some facts which are very important have to be noted. The contract was of 1989. In or about May 1992 a special suit under the said Act, being Special Suit No.64 of 1992 was instituted in this Court for interim reliefs as well as for appointment of Arbitrator. It was at the instance of the petitioner. On 6th May 1998 the petitioner's officer was appointed as arbitrator. Such arbitrator was asked to enter upon the reference with a fortnight and to make and publish an award within a period of four months thereafter. This Court by its Order dated 9th August 1999 extended the time to make and publish the award by four weeks. The last sitting before the Arbitrator was held on 15th September, 2003. He retired soon thereafter. The award came some six months later. It was published to the parties. The arbitrator did not file it in Court at any reasonable point of time thereafter. The Respondent being the beneficiary of the award did not take out any application to compel the arbitrator to file the award. Neither did the petitioner being the debtor under the award take steps to set it aside. I think a setting aside application can be filed whether the award has been filed or not. Instead, it is said Respondent took out an incompetent execution application which was dismissed. I believe that under the above law there was no time limit for the Arbitrator to file the award, although there was a time limit for the parties to take out an application to compel the arbitrator to file the award. (Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963). The arbitrator on his own filed the award in Court on 30th April 2008. Notice under section 14(2) was duly issued on 18th June 2008. This application was taken out on or about 3rd September, 2008. After this application became ready for hearing I condoned the delay on 22nd June 2010. The first point first. It is said for the petitioner that the award was published much beyond the time extended by the Court in 1999. After such time the arbitrator had become functus officio. The award was a nullity.
(3.) The arbitration clause is 18. Under it the time to make the award was six months from entering upon the reference. THE first schedule to the said Act provided four months time from the date of entering upon reference to make the award, unless the agreement provided to the contrary. Therefore six months' stipulation was valid. But according to the petitioner, and I think they are right that in the absence of agreement extending time or the Court extending it, the time to make and publish the award had expired, after four weeks from the order dated 9th August 1999.;