PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

                                                   Sujant Singh

                                                         Vs

                                              Seth Mohinder Paul

                                                (H.R.Khanna, J.)

                                                   08.01.1964

                                                 JUDGEMENT

H.R.Khanna, J.

( 1. ) THIS appeal filed by Sujant Singh is directed against the order of learned Sub -ordinate
Judge, Pathankot, whereby he accepted the objections of the Appellant to an award only in part
and awarded a decree in terms of the modified award against the Appellant.

( 2. ) THE brief facts of this case are that on 4.4.1960 Sujant Singh Appellant and Mohinder Paul
Respondent appointed Dharam Chand Nanda as Arbitrator in respect of their dispute about
certain monetary dealings. After a few hearings before the Arbitrator, wherein certain admissions
were made about the amount due, the Arbitrator gave notice (Exhibit R/6) dated 14.6.1960 to the
Appellant calling upon him to appear before the Arbitrator on 26.6.1960 which was the next date
of hearing fixed for the arbitration proceedings. On 15.6.1960 the Appellant gave notice (Exhibit
Rule 3) to the Arbitrator stating that the Appellant did not want arbitration by Dharam Chand
Nanda and as such the Appellant was revoking the agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration.
The Arbitrator, however, replied that he was proceeding with the award and directed the
Appellant to appear before him on 10 -7 -1960 failing which he would proceed ex -parte. On that
date Mohinder Paul Respondent appeared before the Arbitrator but the Appellant absented
himself. The Arbitrator then recorded the statement of the Respondent and gave an award
holding that the Appellant was liable to pay Rs. 5,046/ - as the principal amount and Rs. 1,547/50
nP. as interest, in all Rs. 6,593/50 nP. to the Respondent. The Appellant was directed to pay that
amount along with future interest at the rate of Rs. 1/ - per cent per mensem till the date of
realization to the Respondent. An application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act
was then filed by the Respondent in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pathankot, praying that the
Arbitrator be ordered to file the award in Court so that the same might be made the rule of the
Court. Award was thereafter filed by the Arbitrator and objections to the award were filed by the
Appellant. In the course of his objections the Appellant alleged that Dharam Chand Nanda was
not properly appointed as Arbitrator because he was an intimate friend of the Respondent and
this fact was not disclosed to the Appellant. The arbitrator was further stated to have
misconducted himself and to have got the signatures of the Appellant on blank papers and used
the same against him. According to the Appellant the award was pre dated and compound
interest had been awarded by the Arbitrator against the Appellant with vengeance and in
collusion with the Respondent. Objection was also taken to the effect that a sum of Rs. 1,300/ -
which had been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, had not been adjusted by the
Arbitrator. The objections were resisted by the Respondent and the Court below framed the
following issues: (1) Whether the award has been procured collusively and improperly? (1A)
Whether Dharam Chand Nanda was not properly appointed as an Arbitrator? (2) Whether the
Arbitrator has committed any judicial misconduct as alleged? (3) Whether the objections have
been filed within time? (4) Whether the award is incomplete? (5) Whether the award is invalid
for its being beyond the scope of the powers of the Arbitrator regarding interest? (6) Whether the
award is pre -dated? (7) Whether the authority of the Arbitrator had been revoked before the
award, if so to what effect? (8) Whether any amount of Rs. 1,300/ - was paid to the Arbitrator by
the Respondent on 4 -4 -1960, which has not been adjusted in the award? (9) Relief? Issues Nos.
1, 1A, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were decided against the Appellant while issue No.3 was decided in his
favour. On Issue No. 5 the finding of the Court below was that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction
to award interest on the amount of Rs. 5,046/ -. The award, it was held, was liable to be modified
by striking down the amount of interest. In the result the objections were accepted only to the
extent that the interest allowed by the Arbitrator over the amount of Rs. 5,046/ - was disallowed.
The remaining objections were dismissed and a decree for Rs. 5,046/ - was granted in favour of
the Respondent against the Appellant in terms of the modified award. Sujant Singh has filed the
present appeal praying that his objections should have been accepted in their entirety and the
award should have been set aside as a whole, while cross -objections have been filed by
Mohinder Paul Respondent against the order of the Court below in so far as it has disallowed the
interest awarded by the Arbitrator, (After dealing with some of the contentions (Paras 3 to 5) of
the Appellant the judgment proceeds): (6) Lastly it has been argued by Mr. Aggarwal that the
Respondent had filed a suit on 27 -6 -1961 against the Appellant with respect to the amounts
which were the subject matter of arbitration. The proceedings in the aforesaid suit, it is stated,
were stayed on objection having been raised by the Appellant. According to Mr. Aggarwal, the
filing of the aforesaid suit by the Respondent would go to show that even he admitted that the
award was liable to be set aside. In my opinion, this contention is devoid of force. It may be that
the Respondent might have filed the suit in respect of the amounts which were the subject -matter
of arbitration as a measure of abundant caution so that his claim for recovery of those amounts
might not become time -barred in case the award was set aside. This would not, however, go to
show that the award in question was invalid and as such was liable to be set aside.

( 3. ) THE appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. ;