K.K. JOHN versus STATE OF GOA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 18-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

K.K. JOHN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GOA 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940: 
S.16-Award-Remission partly of by civil court to arbitrator-Effect 
on remainder-Arbitrator filed award before civil court for being made C 
rule of the court--Civil court remitting the award as regards two points-
Arbitrator resigned-Application for appointment of a new arbitrator-
Civil court holding that since the earlier arbitrator did not give his award 
within time, the whole award became void-It appointed a new arbitrator 
and directed him to give a de-nova award- Held, the contractor did not D 
challenge the order of the Civil Judge whereby and whereunder it was held 
that the other part of the Award shall remain intact and only two points 
were required to be determined-The said order has attainedfina/ity and 
cannot be permitted to be reopened-A perusal of sub-section (1) of s.16 
shows that the court may from time to time remit the award or any matter E 
referred to arbitration to the Arbitrator or Umpire for reconsideration 
upon such terms as it thinks fit-Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 16 is in 
two parts and talks of two distinct factors; one is for remission of the entire 
Award and the other 'any other matter'-Whereas sub-section (3) of 
Section 16 of the Act provides that an award remitted under sub-section F 
(1) shall become void on the failure of Arbitrator or Umpire to reconsider 
it and submit his decision within the time fixed; it is silent as regards 'any 
other matter'-lt is a well settled principle of law that no word used in 
a statute should be presumed to be surplus-In the case, the entire award 
was not remitted to the Arbitrator-The Arbitrator was only required to 
give determination on two points and, therefore, sub-section (3) is not G 
applicable-The Parliament advisedly has restricted sub-section (3) of 
Section 16 of the Act to an award which would mean the whole award or 
a part of it-The valid part of the award always remains enforceable in 
a court of/aw-In any view of the matter, the applicability ofsub-section 
(3) a/Section 16 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does H 
937 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A not arise inasmuch as the matter is still pending before the Arbitrator. 
Johnson v. Latham, (1951) 20 Law Journal 236, referred to. 
Brahma Swaroop Gupta v. Diwan Chand Manotra, AIR (1963) Cal. 
B 583; Goverdhan Dass v. Gaya I'rasad and Ors,. ILR (1981) All. 310·and 
Mehta Teja Singh and Co. v. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr., 
AIR (1968) Delhi 188; referred to. 
"Law of Arbitration" by Russell; referred to. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1247 of 
D 
E 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.97 of the Bombay High 
Court in A. No. 7 of 1997. 
Prashant Kumar, Jay Sayla and Ms. Reena Bagga for the Appellant. 
T.L.V. Iyer and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The interpretation of sub-section 8 of Section 16 of the Arbitration 
Act, I 94C (hereinafter called, for the sake of brevity, the Act') arises for 
consideration in this appeal, which arises out of the judgment and order 
dated 3 lst July, 1997 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side, 
F Panaji Bench, Goa in Appeal No. 7 .of 1997. 
The appellant and the respondent herein entered into an agreement 
whereby and whereunder the appellant undertook to carry out certain 
constructions. The agreement also provided for resolution of dispute by an 
Arbitrator. It appears certain dispute arose as a result of which the appellant 
G herein preferred a claim on 19th September, 1990 and subsequently on 26th 
October, 1990, first reference was made. On 12th March, 1991, the 
respondent herein terminated the agreement. As a result of termination of 
agreement, the appellant herein made another reference on 26th June, 1991 
and put in second claim on 27th September, 1991. The Arbitrator 
H appointed, with the consent of the parties, gave an Award on 25th February, 
K. K. JOHN V. ST ATE 
939 
1994. Thereafter the Arbitrator filed an Award for being made a Rule of A 
the Court. The appellant filed an objection before the learned Civil Judge, 
Senior Division, Mapusa, in the State of Goa. The learned Civil Judge in 
tenns of the order dated 6th July, 1995 elaborately considered the 
contentions raised by the appellant herein and came to the following 
conclusion : 
"20. There ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.