HARI KRISHAN WATTAL versus VAIKUNTH NATH PANDYA

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 18-07-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HARI KRISHAN WATIAL 
v. 
VAIKUN1H NA1H PANDYA 
JULY 18,_ 1973 
259 
(D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act (JO of 1940) s. 28 and cf. (3) of Schedule-Scope of. 
Disputes haying arisen between the appe11ant and the respondent, they were 
referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement entered into between 
the parties. The arbitrator gave his award. The appellant appTied for filing 
of the award into Court and for making it a rule of Court. The validity of 
the award was chalienged by the respondent, and the trial Court and the 
High Court set it aside on the grounds : 
( 1) that the award was made· after the prescribed period and (2) that the 
agreement for arbitration was defective on account of vaguenes5· and uncertainly. 
Allowing the appeal to thi:5 Court and remanding the matter to the High 
Court for disposal. 
HELD : (I) Under cl. (3) of the Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1940, 
the arbitrator i~ expected to make his~ award within four months of his entering 
on the reference or on his being called upon to act or within such extended 
time as the Court may allow. 
Reading the clause with s. 28 of the Act the 
power to enlarge the time for making the award is vested in the Court and 
not in the arbitrator. Section 28 (2), however, indicates an exception. namely 
when the parties agree to such enlargement after the arbitrator enters on the 
arbitration. But tl)e section does not require that the parties should stipulate 
in the arbitration agreement itself, for such enlargement of time by a subse· 
quent agreement. Even in a case where there is no such stipulation in the 
original agreement the arbitrator is· entitled to enlarge the time if after entering 
on the reference the parties to the arbitration consent to such enlargement. 
(26!G-H; 262A-D] 
In the present case, the enlargement of time for making the award 
wa~ 
on the request and mutual consent of the parties durinK arbitration, and there· 
fore, the award made within the extended time must be 
deemed to be valid. 
[263A-C] 
(2) A perusal of the agreement in the background of the di•pote5 that 
had arisen shows that the agreement was neither vague nor uncertain. In fact, 
the parties never complained before the arbitrator of any such va1?Ueness or 
uncertainty. 
[263C; 264B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1433 of 1967. 
Appeal by soecial leave from the judgment and order 
dated 
December 7, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. 31 of 
1963. 
B. D. Sharma. for the appellant. 
Hardayal Hardy. Madhav Prasad and M. V. Goswamy, for res-
pondents l(a) to l(e). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
PALEKAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from an order 
of the High Court at Allaliabad dated December 7, 1966, by which 
the Court. in agreement with the trial court, superseded a Reference 
to Arbitration. 
0!60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974] J. S.C.R. 
Hari Krishna Wattal and Vaikunth Nath Pandya carried on busi-
ness in partnership under the name and style of 'Wattal & Co.'. 
Differences having arisen between them, a reference was made to 
the Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement under the partner-
ship deed. 
The Arbitrator, Shri Bagchi, Advocate. gave an award 
and Hari Krishna Wattal applied under section 14 of the Arbitration 
Act for filing of the award and for making it a rule of the Court. 
Objections were filed by Vaikunth Nath Pandya. 
The award was 
challenged on several grounds. 
The Court of the first instance held 
inter-alia that the award dated February 27, 1959 was invalid 
on 
the ground, firstly, that the award had been passed after the pres-
cribed period for making the award and secondly that the reference 
agreement was defective on account of vagueness and uncertainty. 
Hari Krishna Wattal filed an appeal in the High Court. The learned 
Single Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the trial-court on 
the two above grounds and superseded the reference. 
It is contended by Mr. Sharma that both the Courts were in error 
in holding that the award was invalid on the aforesaid grounds. 
Ex. 13 is the agreement to refer the disputes between the parties. 
The agreement is dated 5-2-1958 and the award, as already stated, 
was made much beyond four months from the date of the reference. 
Prima-facie it wilJ be mvalid unless the time for enlargement for 
making . the award was legally extended. 
It is contended for the 
appellant that the time had bee

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.