Girdhari Lal Batra vs Pramod Kumar Jain
1999 Latest Caselaw 723 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. Both these Appeals can be disposed of by a common Order.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.

3. The Appellant and Respondent were partners in a firm of M/s. Bat Bro Engineering and General Manufacturer. The Firm was dissolved and the manner of distribution of the assets was referred, by both the parties, to Arbitration. The Arbitrator gave an Award dated 5th October, 1989. This Award was in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. By a separate minute the Arbitrator recorded that if the parties do not comply with or fulfill the terms and conditions of the Award within fifteen days, then the Award will be deemed to have been revoked/cancelled and the Arbitrator would have authority to initiate a fresh arbitration and give a decision which will be binding on both the parties. Respondent denies that he agreed that the award, could be revoked/cancelled and/or that the Arbitrator could initiate fresh Arbitration and give a fresh decision. Respondent points out that the Arbitrator seems to have added the last two lines in the minutes after the minutes were signed by the Appellant and the Respondent. We have seen the minutes. It does appear that the last two lines have been written subsequently.

5. After passing of the Award dated 5th October, 1989 the Arbitrator proceeded to hold another reference on the footing that the Respondent had not complied with the Award. The Arbitrator then gave a second Award dated 4th April, 1990.

6. The Appellant filed the Suit No. 3619/90 for making the Award dated 4th April 1990 a Rule of the Court. The Respondent filed Suit No. 390-A/90 for making the first Award dated 5th October 1989 a Rule of the Court. Appellant filed IA 9632/91. By this Appellant raised objections, under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, to the Award dated 5th October, 1989.

7. All these were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the Order dated 31st July, 1997. The learned Single Judge has held that there was no implied or express consent enabling the Arbitrator to make a second Award. The learned Single Judge held that having passed an Award the Arbitrator had no further jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, quashed the Award dated 4th April, 1990 and made the Award dated 5th October, 1989 a Rule of the Court. It must be mentioned that the learned Single Judge has recorded a statement of the Respondent that after the Award dated 5th October, 1989 is made a Rule of the Court the Respondent would abide by the decree in terms thereof.

8. Before us also it is stated, on behalf of the Respondent, that if Award dated 5th October, 1989 is made a Rule of the Court then in terms of that Award the Respondent will clear up all the dues of the Bank, including payment of the interest amount thereon. It is stated that the Respondent will then get the guarantors discharged and the title deeds released. It is further stated that the Respondent will then keep the Appellant indemnified against any claim by the Bank.

9. We are in agreement with a view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Once the Arbitrator had made an Award he became functus officio. Thereafter he had no power to again enter upon a reference and/or to pass a second Award. The second Award is without jurisdiction. It has been rightly set aside. We thus see no reason to interfere.

10. Accordingly both the Appeals stand dismissed.