LexTHE STATE OF BIHAR versus M/S. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROTHERS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·' t. i tl 'S;C:R. SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS 827 '; . I":.• THE STATE OF BIHAR v. M/s. KARAM CHAND THAPAR &' BROTHERS LTD. '' (S. Ki DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. H,I.DA~ATULLAH, J. 0. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA Ai)'A~, JJ.), Stamp-Award-Arbitrator sending cop,ies of the award to parties and to the court, duly signed-Validation of unstamped award-Decree passed thereon-Validity-Indian Stamp Act, I899 (2 of 1899), S, 35· . Arbitration-Agreement to refer to arbitration-:Execution on behalf of Governor by person specifically ~uthorized-Requirements ofauthorization-Government of India Act, 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5 Ch, 42), s. I75(J). , A dispute between the respondent company and 'the Government of Bihar over the bills for the amount payable to the company in respect of the construction works carried out by it for the Government was referred to arbitration. The agreement to refer to arbitration was executed .on behalf of the Go.vernor by L, an executive engineer, who had been specifi- cally authorised to do so by a Secretary to, the Government. The arbitrator made his award an.d sent copies thereof to the parties. The respondent applied to the C9urt under the provi- sions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for a decree in terms of the award.. The State filed objections thereto and the matter was registered as a suit. While the suit was pending. the arbitrator sent to the court a copy of the a'Y.ard duly signed by him for being filed as provided in the Ad, and on .the receipt thereof the respondent had it validated on payment of the req:'iisite stamp duty under s. 35 of the ·Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The appellant, the State of .Bihar, ,conteftded .that no decree could be passed on the basis of the award. op the grounds (1) that the agreement) or' reference to arbitration did not comply with the requirements of s. r75(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, inasmuch as it was not signed by the person 1authoris'ed to do so tlnder the notification issued by the'1Government of Bihar on April r, 1937, in exercise of the ·powers conferred by s.,175(3); and (2) that the instrument before th~ court was a certified copy and that under .s. 35 of the ,Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a copy could not be validated or acted~upon. · · ' Held, tha~ s. r75(3) of the Government of' India Act, 1935, does not prescribe any particular mode in which authority must be conferred and that where authorisation is·· conferred ad hoc on any· person, the requirements of the section must be held to be satisfied. April 7. ' 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962;) ' -- ' State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar 0, Brothers Ltd. ' Held, further, that the award sent by the arbitrator to the court was the original and not a copy of the award and by applying the provisions .of s. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it was effectively, validated. The Rajah of Bobbili v. Inuganti china Sitaramasami Garu, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 262, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 209 of 1959. Appeal from .. the judgment and order dated Octo- ber 5, 1956, of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 367 of 1953. L. K. Jha and R. C. Prasad, for the Appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, N. De " • and P. K. Mukherjee, for the respondents. 1961. April 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Venkatarama VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.-This is an appeal against Aiyar J. the Judgment of the High Court of Patna in an appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appel- lant is the State of Bihar, and the respondents am a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, doing business as building contractors. They entered into three contracts for the construction of aerodrome, hangarettes, buildings, stores and other works at Ranchi, the first of them being contract No. 21 of 1942 dated November 5, 1942, and the other t.wo being contracts Nos. 6 and 8 dated April 5, 1943. After the above works were completed, disputes arose between the parties over the bills and eventually by an agreement dated February 6, 1948, they were referred to the arbitration of one Col. A. W. s: Smith. The arbitrator made his award on June 4, 1948, and sent a copy thereof to the parties. The respondents thereupon filed a petition \mder ss.- 17 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for' a depree in terms of the award. The appellant filed objections thereto, and the petition was then registered as Title S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.