Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar Jain vs Girdhari Lal Batra on 31 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 70 (1997) DLT 28
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
(1) This is a petition by Pramod Kumar Jain under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award dated 5.10.1989 as a Rule of the Court. Against this award objection by way of I.A. 9632/91 has been filed. Ms. Sidhu, Counsel for the objector has contended that the award passed on 5.10.1989 was a conditional award. She has contended that from the reading of the whole of the award, it will be manifestly dear that it was conditional award and on non fulfilllment of the condition of the award, the Arbitrator had the right to revoke and cancel the award, dated 5.10.1989 and it was further agreed between the parties that the Arbitrator could make another award.
(2) She has further contended that Pramod Kumar Jain failed to comply with the condition of the award dated 5.10.1989 and on failure of said Pramod Kumar Jain to comply with the conditions of the award,a letter was issued by the Arbitrator that in case he will not comply with the condition, the Arbitrator would start the fresh arbitration proceedings and in these premises, the Arbitrator made a fresh award dated 4.4.1990. According to learned Counsel for the' objector in view of another award having been made on 4.4.1990 by the Arbitrator the award dated 5.10.1989 be set aside.
(3) On the other hand. Counsel for the petitioner /claimant has contended that from the award as made on 5.10.1989 it would be borne out that the award was neither conditional nor any implied nor express consent was given by the petitioner to the Arbitrator to make a new award.
(4) Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that there was no question of not fulfillling the obligations under the award by the petitioner as that stage has not arisen yet as the award has not been made rule of the Court by this Court. He has contended that after the award is made rule of the Court in pursuance of the decree passed there after the terms of the award has to be mandatorily fulfillled by the parties to the arbitration.
(5) The main apprehension of the learned Counsel for the objector has been that the liability fastened on Pramod Kumar Jain with regard to payment of the dues of the bank and release of the title deeds which are lying deposited on behalf of the objector as guarantor has not been adhered to by the petitioner and that was the reason why the Arbitrator has given a second award.
(6) In view of the statement of Counsel for the petitioner that after the award dated 5.10.1989 is made rule of the Court he will go by the decree in terms thereof. I do not see any reason as to why the objections of the objector be not dismissed. In any event of the matter after perusing the whole award it cannot be said that the award was conditional or was merely an interim award. From the record of the case, even otherwise there was neither implied or expressed consent of the petitioners to have second award and if that was not the situation then Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make award afresh after making award on 5.10.1989.
(7) I quash the subsequent award dated 4.4.1990 and make award dated 5.10.1989 rule of the Court. Decree in terms thereof be passed.
(8) Rest of the applications stand disposed of in terms of the above order.
(9) Suit No. 3919/90 is disposed of in terms of the above order. Award made rule of Court.
