- (1.) This is a petition for revisions and is directed against the decision of the learned District Judge, Jullundur, dated 21st of March, 1967, reversing, on appeal, the decision of the trial Court refusing to make the award a Rule of the court.
(2.) In pursuance of an arbitration agreement the dispute between the parties was referred to the arbitration of East Punjab Motion Pictures Association, Jullundur City. This association has a permanent Tribunal of arbitrators. The Tribunal is constituted of four members. The reference was entertained by the Tribunal and an award was made. An application was made under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for making the award a Rule of the Court. That application was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that there was no valid award because it was not signed by all the members of the Tribunal. It was also decided that one of the partners of the firm, namely, M/s Sethi Films Private Ltd. Jullundur, could not refer the dispute to arbitration. The third reason which prevailed with the learned Judge for setting aside the award was that the award had been signed by the arbitrator and later on written on a stamp paper. According to the learned Judge, the award on the stamp paper was not a valid award. An appeal against this decision was taken to the learned District Judge, who reversed the decisions of the trial Court on all the three matters. He held that the managing member of the partnership could enter into the reference, that the re-writing of the award was purely a ministerial Act and did not vitiate the award and that there was ample authority for the proposition that one of the arbitrators could sign the award. The present petition, as already stated, has been filed by the petitioners; who were respondents before the learned District Judge, and who were the other party to the reference.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel I am of the view that there is considerable force in the first two contentions that prevailed with the learned trial Judge, but not in the third. I will first dispose of the contention which has no merit. The award was written and signed by one of the arbitrators and on that very date the parties were directed to bring the stamp-paper so that the award could be scribed on the same. The stamp-paper was later on purchased and the award was scribed on it. In the circumstances, It was a purely ministerial act, and, therefore, there is no question of arbitrators doing something after they had become functus officio. If any authority for this is needed, reference may be made to Parshotamdas v. Kekhushru, 1934 AIR(Bom) 6, and Dasaratha Rao v. Ramaswamy, 1956 AIR(Mad) 134. Mr. R.N. Mittal in support of his contention relied upon Srinivasa Rao v. V. Narasimha Rao, 1963 AIR(AP) 193, but that decision was based on the Supreme Court, decision in Rikhabdas v. Ballabhdas, 1962 AIR(SC) 551. The facts in the Supreme Court case where, however, totally different. There the award had left the hands of the arbitrator and had been used in Court proceedings, the Court remitted the award with a direction that it should be executed on a stamp-paper, and this was done on an objection that the award was unstamped and unregistered. It was in this context that the Civil Procedure Code made the observation that the award could not be re-written and the direction would be void. With utmost respect to the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, I am unable to hold that the re-writing of the award on a stamp-paper in the present case would make the award void. I am, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Bombay and Madras High Courts on this matter.;