HLNDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 12-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
lllNDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY L'fP. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
p 
G 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
October 12, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940), 
s. 14(2)-Award-Copy of 
award required to be filed in Court-Umpire certifying copy of award 10 
be a true copy and then signing award-Such copy whether a 'signed copy' 
within meaning of section-',Sign', meaning of. 
The appellant entered into a contract with the Union of India for the 
construction of certain railway bridges. 
On disputes arising the matter 
went to arbitration and then to an umpire. After the umpire had made his 
award the appellant filed an application under s. 14 of the Indian Arbitra. 
tion Act 1940, praying that the umpire be directed to file the award OI' a 
signed copy thereof in the terms of s. 14(2). 'l'he umpire filed in the Court 
a copy at the top of which he wrote : "now I hereby reproduce a true copy 
of the said award which is as follows." 
At the end of the copy of the 
award he wrote : "Certified as correct copy of the award dated. 27th May 
1961." Under this the umpire's signature appeared. It was objected by the 
Union of India before the court that the copy of the award so filed was not 
a "signed copy" of the award as required by s. 14(2). but only a "certified 
copy".. The objection was upheld by the court and the appellants applica-
tion fur passing a judgment in terms of the award was dismissed. A re-
vision petition before the High Court failed. 
The appellant then came to 
this Court by special leave. 
HELD : When a document is an accuraie or trtl<I and full reproduction 
of the original it would be a copy. 
In the present case what was produced 
by the umpire was a true accurate and full reproduction of the original. 
It was therefore a copy of the original. [845 HI 
It was also a signed copy because it bore the signature of the umpire. 
A document must be signed in such a way as to make it appear that the 
person signing it is the author of it, and if that appears it does not matter 
what the form of an instrument is, or in what part· of it the signature 
occurs. The fact that the umpire wrote the words "certified as correct 
copy of the award dated the 27th May 1961" above his signature did not 
make any_ difference and the document was still a signed copy of the 
award. If anything these words showed that the document filed was a 
true copy of the award. [846 D, H; 847 A-Bl 
Moh•sh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree, I.L.R. (1881) VI Cal. 340, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusmcnoN : Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judilllent and order dated 
December 17, 1964 of. the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) 
at Delhi i_n Civil Revision No. 159-D of 1963. 
H 
M. C. Setalvad, Veda Vyasa and K. K. Jain, for the appellants. 
S. G. Patwardhan, K. L. Hathi and R.H. Dhebar, for the res· 
pondent. 
844 
SUPR.BMB COllllT RBPOR TS 
(1967) l S.C.R.. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J •. This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Punjab High Court and arises in the following 
circwnstances. The appellant entered into a contract with the Union 
of India, respondent herein, for construction of certain highway 
bridges. In connection with the execution of the contract, some 
disputes arose between the parties and, were referred to the joint 
arbitration of Sri B. K. Guha and Sri N. P. Gurjar. As there was 
difference of opinion between the two arbitrators, the matter was 
referred to an umpire, namely, Sri Dildar Hussain, retired Chief 
Engineer, Hyderabad. The umpire recorded evidence of the parties 
and gave his award on May.27, 1961. It appears that the award 
was made in duplicate and one copy was sent to each party. 
On 
August 4, 1961, the appellant made a petition before the Subor-
dinate Judge First Class, Delhi under ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitra-
tion Act, No. JO of 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
It was prayed that the umpire be directed by the court to cause the 
award or a signed copy thereof together with any depositions and 
documents which might have been taken and proved before him 
to be filed in court (s. 14). 
It was further prayed that a judgment 
be passed in terms of the award (s. 17). 
It appears. that or, this petition the court issued notice to the 
umpire to file the award and the arbitration proceedings. On 
September 13, 1961, the umpire wrote to the court that he was 
forwarding along with that letter the award in t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.