T.C. PURUSHOTHAMAN AND ANR. Vs. D.V. KRISHNAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners and the respondents were partners in a business which was run under the name and style of 'Uma Trading Company.' Misunderstanding arose between them and their disputes were referred, under a specific arbitration agreement dated 20th October, 1965, to five individuals viz., Subramaniam Chettiar, Venugopal Chettiar, Mahalinga Mudaliar, Shanmughasundaram and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar. According to one of the Arbitrators, Venugopal Chettiar, who claimed to be the President of the Board of arbitrators the board entered upon the reference after accepting the arbitration agreement and the reference, and after several sittings in October, 1965 the final award was recorded on stamp paper.. It is not in dispute before me that the same was registered on 27th October, 1965, and was also minuted in the book kept by the arbitrators. The President of the board of arbitrators, after having thus completed the award, filed it into Court after giving notice of the said award to the parties. The said proceedings were numbered as O. P. No. 22 of 1966. The petitioners herein thereafter filed I.A. No. 66 of 1966 in the main O.P. No. 22 of 1966 filed as above by the President of the arbitrator and sought for a decree in terms of the award.

(2.) THE respondents herein took notice of the award and also the proceedings in Court and the stand of the petitioners to pass a decree in terms of the award. They took such notice on 16th February, 1966. The first hearing of the proceedings was on 28th February, 1966. Even then the respondents did not file any independent application or any counter to I. A. No. 66 of 1966 filed by the petitioners wherein they sought for a decree in terms of the award produced by the President of the board of arbitrators into Court in the main original petition. But, on 28th March, 1966, the respondents filed a counter stating that the arbitration agreement was purely one sided, that the award passed on 28th October, 1965 by the arbitrators was ab initio void inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act have not been complied with and that the arbitration award has been signed only by the President and not by all. Lastly, the respondents took up the position that even if an award has since been passed by the arbitrators in the regular course, the award produced into Court is a forged one; according to the respondents, from the original award some papers have been removed and some other papers have been introduced, and, while in the original award they had signed along with others, that was not to be found in the award now produced into Court, on the basis of which a decree is sought for by the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act as also the provisions of the Limitation Act of 1963 and contended that this is not a case in which Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is applicable and that the respondents' challenge is only 'directed towards the merits and the conduct of the arbitrators in the course of the proceedings and their objections could only be understood: as one against the award or its 'improper procuration' or its 'invalidity' and not as an objection which could be understood to be relatable to the 'existence' of an award within the meaning of Section 33 of the Act.