- (1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 (1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
(2.) THE appellant Shyam Sunder and the respondents Sitaram, Saligram, Ganga Bishan, and Balkishan referred their dispute to the arbitration of Mr. H. P. Bagchi, Advocate, Agra, by an agreement dated 3rd November, 1948. THE arbitrator gave his award on 18th June, 1952. One of the parties to the agreement, namely, Bal Kishan, made an application to the District judge, Merta, on 17th September, 1952, for an order to the arbitrator to file his award together with any depositions and documents which may have been presented and proved before him, and that thereafter further proceedings be taken according to law. Notice was issued of this application to the other parties to the agreement, but later on it was found that this was really not necessary, and an order was made to the arbitrator to file his award. THE award was filed by Mr. Verma, Advocate, for the Arbitrator, on 27th March, 1953. THE court passed an order on that date to inform the parties to the reference of the fact of the award having been filed with a direction that the parties may file any objection, if they so chose to do. THE aforesaid notice was served on Shyam Sunder on 3rd June, 1953. Shyam Sunder filed his objections on 18th July, 1953 An objection was taken by Bal Kishan on 6th November, 1954, that this objection was filed by Shyam Sunder beyond the period of limitation provided under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, and, therefore, should be rejected. THE learned District Judge upheld this plea, and rejected the objection as being barred by time. He pronounced judgment in accordance with the award on 14th March, 1955. THE present appeal has been filed against the order of the District Judge refusing to set aside the award, inasmuch as the objections raised by the appellant were rejected. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the arbitrator did not send the depositions and documents taken and proved before him along with the award, and that these documents and relevant papers were submitted in court on 26th September, 1953. The award was held to have been properly filed on 26th September, 1953, and the earlier notice directed to be issued on 27th March, 1953, was no notice in the eye of law, and if this notice and its service on 3rd June, 1953, are not taken into consideration, the objections which were filed on 18th July, 1953, could not be said to be beyond time, inasmuch as the time only began to run when a proper notice can be said to have been served on Shyam Sunder, which has not yet been done. On behalf of the respondents it is urged that the time limit fixed by Article 158 of the Limitation Act for filing objections is 30 days from the date of service of notice of filing of award. That Article does not contemplate the giving of any notice of filing of the depositions and documents. The notice, which was served on the appellant, fully intimated to the appellant that the award had been filed, and, therefore, Article 158 will have its full application in the present case. I have gone through the record and taken into consideration the arguments of learned counsel in this case. The language of sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act is as follows : - "14. (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it, and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court, and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award, and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in Court, and the Court, shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. (3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special cause under clause (b) of sec. 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of the award". The first subjection relates to the making of the award, signing of it by the arbitrators, and notice to the parties of the making and signing thereof and the amount of fees chargeable in respect of the arbitration and award. There is no dispute about this in the present case. Sub-sec. (2), among other things, directs the arbitrators, in the circumstances mentioned in the sub-section, to cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in Court. The last sentence of this sub-section then says that thereupon the Court shall give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The notice, which is required to be given by the Court, is of the filing of the award. Article 1. 5. 8 of the Limitation Act also provides the period of 30 days from the service of notice of the filing of the award. While sub-sec. (2) no doubt lays down that the arbitrator shall, alongwith the award or a copy thereof, produce the depositions and documents taken and proved before him in Court, the omission to do so would only be an irregularity which could be cured at any time by asking the arbitrator to comply with it. It has no bearing on the legality of otherwise of the award. It may be that if the arbitrator suppresses any oral or documentary evidence, th?t may be later on taken to be a ground imputing misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. But mere omission to produce the depositions and documents along with the award would not render the award invalid, if it is otherwise valid. The provision directing the arbitrator to file the depositions and documents is of significance for the purpose of deciding whether there has been a misconduct, and an opportunity is afforded to the parties to show by reference to those documents or depositions that there is something in then which should induce the Court to set aside the award or reject any objections which may have been made by the other party. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Khatiza Bee Bee vs. I. E. Abowath (1), in which there is an observation that if the documents and depositions are not filed with the award, there is no proper filation of the award by the arbitrator. The case, however, turned on the fact that the procedure laid down by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 14 had not been fallowed in the case, and the award was directed to be returned to the arbitrator for compliance with the provisions of that sub-section. Another decision, which throws some light on the present case, is Yusuf Khan vs. Riyasat Ali (2 ). In this case the arbitrator did not file the documents and depositions, and on the facts of the case it was held that the arbitrator had committed misconduct. The relevant observations, however, are: - "we do not wish to lay down that the mere fact that an arbitrator has omitted to file along with his award the depositions of the witnesses examined by him or the documentary evidence filed before him would justify a Court in holding that the award is on that ground invalid; but there may be a case like the present which we have before us in which the procedure adopted by the arbitrator in not filing that evidence before the Court may lead one to the conclusion that the arbitrator did not act in accordance with law, and that he was, therefore, guilty of misconduct as stated in para 15".
(3.) IN the present case, the objections, which were filed on 18th July 1953, by Shyam Sunder, were to the merits of the award, and not one single objection refers to the omission of the arbitrator to file the depositions and documents or the handicap under which Shyam Sunder may have been working in laying before the court his complete objections. On the facts of this case. I am of opinion that the omission to file the depositions and documents along with the award was only a minor irregularity, and not that kind of irregularity which would make the filing of the award by the arbitrator on 27th March, 1953, as of no consequence. It may be mentioned that the filing of the documents has been directed under that law for the purpose of letting the court in possession of full facts, and not for the purpose of filing any objections by any of the parties to the reference. This becomes clear by reference to sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act, which is as follows : - "where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award, has expired or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award". This section casts a duty on the court to see for itself whether there is any cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration, or to set aside the award, and then to proceed in the particular manner mentioned in the section. One of the purposes for submission of the depositions and documents may be that the Court may be able to see whether there is any reason for remitting or setting aside the award, irrespective of the fact that any party may or may not file any objections. The court is not bound by any rule of limitation in exercising its own powers of the perusal of the award or the remission thereof or setting aside the same. I am, therefore, of opinion that on the facts made out in the present case, the omission to file the depositions and documents was merely an irregularity and the notice which was issued by the Court was in terms of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 of the Act. IN the circumstances of the case, no prejudice has been proved to have been caused to the appellant. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. .;