AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Manisana, J.—In this petition, the petitioners have challenged a judgment of the Assistant District Judge (I), Gauhati, dated 7.12.1983 passed u/s 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short the ''Act'', in Title (Arb) Suit No. 125 of 1979.
It is admitted at the Bar that the petitioners filed an application or objection for setting aside the award. Therefore, that application or objection must be disposed of by passing an appropriate order. If the court refuses to set aside the award, then the court shall proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award. Under Clause (vi) of Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an award is appealable. Since an order setting aside or refusing to set aside is appealable, there should be a specific order.
In the present case, on perusal of the impugned judgment, I do not find any order disposing of the application or objection for setting aside the award, i.e. the court below passed the impugned judgment u/s 17 of the Act without disposing of the application or objection to set aside the award. If the petitioners or their counsel was absent on the date fixed for hearing of the application or objection, the court could pass an order dismissing the application or objection. As already stated, an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an award is appealable and a specific order is to be passed. But in the present case no such order has been passed. For this reason, the impugned judgment of the court below cannot be sustained.
In the result, the impugned judgment, dated 7.12.1983 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Learned Assistant District Judge (I), Gauhati for disposal of the matter afresh after giving the parties the opportunity of being heard. I hope and trust that the Learned Assistant District Judge shall dispose of the mater within a period of five (5) months considering the age of the case.
The petition is allowed. No costs.