B.R.ARORA,J. - (1.) APPELLANT Chhoga Lal and respondent Ganesh Mal were the partners in a business firm M/S Ganesh Mal Bhagwanji and Company, Sumerpur. Dispute arose between the two partners Chhoga Lal and Ganesh Mal and both the partners, on August 13, 1961, vide Ex. 2, agreed to refer the dispute to the Arbitration of Shri Dhan Raj. Shri Dhan Raj gave his Award on November, 3, 1961, and in token of the receipt of the Award, got the signatures of Ganesh Mal and Chhoga Lal appended on the Award EX. 1. Dhan Raj. the Arbitrator on May 25, 1966, filed the Award in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi Notices of this Award were issued to Ganesh Mal and Chhoga Lal. On August 18, 1966, Ganesh Mal appeared in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, and filed the reply, accepting the Award. Chhoga Lal, also, appeared on the same day and filed reply raising certain objections regarding the validity of the Award. On March 15, 1972, Chhoga Lal again filed an amended objection application challenging the validity of the Award. The main objections, taken by Chhoga Lal challenging the Award, were that the Award EX. 1 is neither signed by the Arbitrator nor is it registered as is required under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act as it affects the immovable property and, therefore, the award is not valid and cannot be made a rule of the Court. An objection was, also, taken that the application made by the Arbitrator under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for Short 'the Act'), is not properly verified as required under the Rules and it is, also, barred by time and, therefore, the award cannot' be made the rule of the Court. Chhoga Lal, in support of its case, examined himself as AW 1 and, also, got examined AW 2 Magan Raj and AW 3 Shesh Mal - the Munim of the firm, and placed reliance over certain documents. Ganesh Mal, in support of its case, examined himself as NA 1/W 1 an, also, got examined NA 1/W 2 Tejaji - the scribe of EX. 2 land NA 1/W 3 Dhanr Raj, and, also, placed reliance over certain documents, including the copy of the Award EX. A. 1 and four letters marked as NAW 3/1 to NAW 3/4 dated August 13, 1961 / NAW 3/1 and NAW 3/2 were the letters which were signed by both -Chhoga Lal and Ganesh Mal, which were addressed to the Arbitrator Shri Dhan Raj, in which a request was made for preparing the accounts books. Letter dated 12.11.61 (NAW 3/3) was the letter signed by both Chhoga Lal and Ganesh Mal, addressed to Shri Dhan Raj, enclosing the stamp -papers for writing the Award and further stating that the award will be acceptable to them. The letter dated 19.11.61 (NAW 3/4) is written by Chhoga Lal to Shri Dhan Raj - the Arbitrator -in which it has been mentioned that the sum payable under the Award to him by Shri Ganesh Mal has not been paid to him by Ganesh Mal. The learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by its decree and judgment dated February 24, 1975, allowed the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act filed by the Arbitrator for making the Award as the rule of the Court and the decree dated February 24, 1975, was prepared on the basis of this award. It is against this decree and judgment dated February 24, 1975, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, that the appellant has filed this miscellaneous appeal.
(2.) THE first contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the Award EX. 1 in question is an unsigned award and, therefore, the learned lower Court committed an error in making the award a rule of the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the award EX. 1 has been produced by the Arbitrator himself in the Court which apparently shows that the Arbitrator Shri Dhan Raj owns the Award. Alternatively, it is submitted that Ex. A. 1 is the exact copy of the Award which is signed by the Arbitrator and which has been produced by Ganesh Mal in the Court, which can be treated as the Award and non -signing of the award by the Arbitrator is a formal defect which can be cured. Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that when the Arbitrator has made his Award, he shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to both the parties of the making and signing the award and the amount of the fee chargeable and payable to him in respect of the arbitration award. The Arbitrator, while making the award, must make -up his mind upon the matter referred to him and express his judgment in writing and authenticate the same by signing it. The requirement of authenticating the Award by signing it is mandatory as is clear from the use of word 'shall' before the word 'sign' in Section 14(1) of the Act. Non -signing of the Award by the Arbitrator is a curable defect and that could have been cured if the learned lower Court so liked and could have returned the award for signing to the Arbitrator. But the learned trial Court did not get the award signed by the Arbitrator and placed reliance over the copy of the Award EX. A.1, which could not have been done. In the present case, the Award was got typed by the Arbitrator Dhan Raj, but it is not signed by him though it is signed by both the parties, namely, Chhoga Lal and Ganesh Mal. Chhoga Lal and Ganesh Mal appended their signatures only with respect to the receipt of the copy of the award and they were not the executors of the document of award. The award could have been signed and authenticated by the Arbitrator Dhan Raj himself but that does not bear his signatures and the want of signature of Dhan Raj - the Arbitrator - on the award invalidates it and renders the award nullity. The learned lower Court, therefore, committed an error in making the award a rule of the Court in the absence of the signatures of the Arbitrator. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that though the Award EX. 1 is not signed by the Arbitrator but because the Arbitrator himself has moved an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act to make the award a rule of the Court and, therefore, it may be deemed that he has appended his signatures on the Award. Alternatively, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that EX. A. 1 is the true and correct copy of the award and is signed by Shri Dhan Raj - the Arbitrator - and, therefore, that may be treated as the Award. It is, no doubt, true that the Arbitrator Dhan Raj moved an application under Section 14 of the Act alongwith the award with the prayer that the award may be made a rule of the Court, but merely on the basis of making an application and filing the unsigned award alongwith that application, it cannot be presumed that the Arbitrator has signed the award particularly when Section 14(1) of the Act makes the requirement of the signature of the Arbitrator on the Award as a mandatory requirement and, therefore, filing of the application alongwith the award, which is not signed by the Arbitrator, cannot validate the award, which is not signed by the Arbitrator. So far as EX. A. 1 is concerned, it is the typed carbon copy of the award EX. 1 prepared by the same process. It bears the signatures of the Arbitrator Shri Dhan Raj. Dhan Raj's signatures on this copy of the award may at the most be taken to the effect that it is the true and correct copy of the award and not beyond that. The learned Counsel for the respondents, in this respect, has placed reliance over the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Hindustan Construction Company v. Union of India : AIR1967SC506 . In that case, the copy of the award was produced in the Court which was signed by the Arbitrator, but no endorsement was made on that copy that it is a certified true copy of the award and the Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that non -mentioning of the words certified/true copy of the original, will not make any difference and the signed copy of the award can be filed by the parties alongwith the application under Section 14(2) of the Act and the copy bearing the signatures of the Arbitrator can be treated as the certified to be true copy. The copy Ex. A. 1 filed by Ganesh Mal, at the best, can be treated as the certified true copy of the award but it cannot be treated as the 'Award' itself when the original award filed by the Arbitrator in the Court does not bear the signatures of the Arbitrator and, therefore, unless the award bears the signatures of the Arbitrator, it cannot be said to be an Award in the eye of law and is a nullity and cannot be made a rule of the Court.
(3.) THE next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Shri Dhan Raj -,the Arbitrator had no authority under the law to file an Award in the Court on 25.5.66 as the Award was given in the present case without the intervention of the Court and the Arbitrator was not authorised by the agreement EX. 2 to produce the award in the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Section 14 of the Act nowhere precludes the Arbitrator to file the Award in the Court suo moto and the Arbitrator can file the award in the Court so as to make it a rule of the Court and it will not make any difference whether the Arbitrator is appointed by the Court or by the parties agreed to appoint the Arbitrator. This point was not argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, but since it is a pure question of law and no evidence is required for the disposal of this controversy and, therefore, this point can be considered even without its being agitated before the trial Court. Sub - section (2) of Section 14 of the Act states that the Arbitrator or the Umpire shall, at the request of any of the parties to the arbitration, or any person claiming as such as a party or if so directed by the Court, to be filed in the Court and the Court shall, thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the Award. The language of Sub -sections (2) of Section 14 of the Act does not preclude the Arbitrator from filing the award suo moto. It is, therefore, not necessary that the award can be filed by the Arbitrator only if the parties make a request to the Arbitrator to file the same or he may be asked by the Court on the application made by the parties to submit it in the Court. There is no prohibition in the Act against the Arbitrator from suo moto filing the award in the Court. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is, therefore, wholly untenable. The Arbitrator was competent to file the award in the Court suo moto so as to make it a rule of the Court. No illegality has been committed by the learned lower Court in deciding this objection against the appellant.;