P.Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) THE only question involved in this appeal is whether the arbitrator made his award within the time extended to him by the Court or whether, by making it after the expiry of such time, he made himself guilty of misconduct. THE argument before us turned solely on that single question. Mr.Chaudhuri, who appeared for the appellant, did mention another count of misconduct without, however, pressing it. About that item of alleged misconduct, I shall have to say something later.
(2.) AS regards the point actually pressed before us, the facts are as follows. On 20-11-1950, the appellant, Nalini Ranjan Guha, instituted a suit against the Union of India on the Original Side of this Court for the recovery of a certain sum of money, claimed as due to him on account of some work done. After the suit had made some progress, the Union of India made an application on 18-1-1951 for a stay of the suit on the ground that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. Subsequently, on 3-4-1951, an application was made for a reference of the differences in the suit to arbitration and S. R. Das Gupta, J., directed a reference to be made with respect to so much of the claim as was within the contract in which the arbitration agreement was contained. After that order was made, the matter came to be dealt with by Bachawat, J., who, on 2-7-1952, appointed Mr. R. C. Dev to be the arbitrator. Mr. Dev declined the office and thereupon the late Mr. K. K. Basu was appointed. Mr. Basu entered on the reference, but shortly thereafter he died. Then, on the 27th of January, 1954, an order was made by Sarkar, J., appointing Mr. S. A. Masud, a member of the Bar, to be the arbitrator in the case. The order stated that the arbitrator was to make his award in writing and submit the same to the Court, together with all proceedings had, depositions recorded and exhibits filed before him within six months from the date of service on him of an office copy of the order of reference. It appears that Mr. Masud found considerable difficulty in completing his enquiry and extensions of time were successively applied for and granted on numerous occasions. In 1955 alone, five such extensions had to be taken for and in the preceding year as well, the time had had to be extended, but on how many occasions it does not appear. The order of reference, as I have already stated, was made as long ago as on 27-1-1954, but even on 20-9-1955, the arbitrator had not done with the reference. As to the cause of that unusual delay, there are allegations and denials, but with that matter we are not here concerned. On 20-9-1935, the last application was made for an extension of time to make the award and the time was extended up to 31-12-1955. The order made on that date did not say that the time was being granted for making and submitting the award to Court, as the order of 27-1-1954, had done, hut merely said that the time to make the award was being extended.
(3.) ON 31-12-1955, the last day of the period of the last extension granted to him, the arbitrator wrote out his award and signed it. We are informed that the 1st and 2nd of January were holidays. It was only on 3-1-1956, that the arbitrator notified the parties that he had made his award and, on the same day, he sent the award to this Court for the purpose of being filed. Then, on the 2nd of March, following, the appellant made an application for setting aside the award. His application was dismissed by Mallick, J., and against that order of the learned Judge he has appealed.;