LexKUMBA MAWJI versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L...
1953
Apdl lo.
878
SUPREME CO:CRT REPORTS
[i953]
KUMBHA MAvVJI
v.
UNION O:F INDIA-
[iVIEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, VrvIAN BosE and
JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.]
Indian Arbitration Act (II of 1940), ss. 14 (2), 31 (3) and (4)
--Filing of award--Urnpire handin(I o·ver award to parties--li'iling
in Court by part11--Necessity of a11thorisa.tion of arbitrator or mn-
pi1'e--Award filed in two Courts--Exclnsive j11risdiction of Co11rt
in which awa.rd was filed earlier-Filinu awctrrl after arbitration is
coinpletc--Applicability of s. 31 ( 4)--"In a reference", meaninq of.
The mere filing of award in Court by a party to it without
the authority of the arbitrator or umpire is not a su!licient OOlll-
pliance with the terllls of s. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act,
1940, nor can it bo inferred from the mere handing over of the
original award by the umpire to both the parties that he autlwris-
ed thelll to file the same in Court on his behalf; that authority
has to be specifically alleged and proved.
The phrase "in a reference" in s. 31, sub-s. (4), of the Indian
Arbitration Act1 1940, is coml_)rehensive enough to cover an applic.
ation first made after the arbitration is completed and a iinal
award made, and the
sub~section vests exclusive jurisdiction in
the Court in which an application for filing an •ward has been
first made nuder s. 14 of the Act.
The respondent who was a party to an award filed itn applica-
tion before the Subordinate Jndge of Gauhati under s. 14 ('2) of
the Indian Arbitration Ad, on tho 10th August, 1949, praying
that the umpire may be directed to file the award in Court and
upon this notice \Yas issued to the umpire to file the award in
Court before 24th August, 1949.
As the original award had been
handed over to the parties, the umpire sent by post on the 18th
August, 1949, a copy of the award signed by him.
The Court
directed the respondent to file the original award in Court and he
did so on the 3rd September, 1949. :\!eanwhile the appellant's
solicitors sent to the Registrar of the Calcutta High Court Ori-
ginal Side, on the 17th August, 1949, the original award for being
filed in Court and the award was filed on the 29th August:
Held, that, as the umpire had, on the direction of the Sub-
ordinate Jndge of Gauhati sent a copy of the award signed by him
to the Court on the 18th August, 1949, the earlier filing for the
purposes of s. 31(3) of the Arbitration Act was in the Ganhati
Court and not in the Calcutta High Court, though the original
award was filed by the respondent in the Gauhati Court only after
the appellant's solicitor had sent the award for filing to the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
879
Calcutta High Court.
In the circumstances the Gauhati Court
1953
alone had jurisaicition to proceed with the hearing of the dispute
-
under s. 31 of the Act.
KumbhaMawji
Judgment of the Calcutta High Court affirmed.
v.
Union of lndia ..
CIVIL APP.ELLATE
.JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 133 and 131of1952.
Appeals from the .Judgment and Decree dated the
23rd February, 1951, of the High Court of .Judicature
at Calcutta (Harries C.J. and Bannerjee .J.) in Appeal
No. 11of1950 arising out of the Judgment and Decre 0
dated the 16th day of December, 19i9, of the said High
Court (Sinha J.) in its Ordinary Original Civil .Juris-
diction in Award Case No. 208 of 19i9.
N. 0. Chatterjee (Amiya Kumrir Jfukhe1:jea, with
him) for the appellant.
0. K. Driphtary, Solicitor-General for India (G. N.
Joshi and Jindra Lal, with him) for the respondent.
1953. April 16. The .Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
JAGANXADHA DAS J.-On the 28th of January,
1948, the appellant, Khumba Mawji, entered into an
agreement with the respondent, the Dominion of
India (as it then was) to manufacture and supply, to
the Bengal Assam Railway, stone boulders and ballast
from Chutiapara quarry. The agreement was entered
into at Calcutta, though the work was to be carried
ont in Assam. It was a term of the agreement that
if any differences arose between the parties, they were
to be referred to the arbitration of two persons, one
to be nominated by each side, and that if the arbitra-
tors were not able to agree, the matter was to be
decided by an umpire to be nominated by both the
arbitrators. Differences having, in fact, arisen, the
dispute was referred to two arbitrators and on their
disagreement the matter went up to an umpire, one
Mr. P. C. Chowdhury. The umpire made twoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.