AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jhanji, J.—The present revision petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 13th June, 1986 of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), for making the award dated 19th February, 1985 a rule of the Court. The learned Senior Sub Judge concluded that the award is vague, indefinite and the arbitrator has not determined the differences between the parties rather he has left the matter in dispute undecided, and directed the parties to produce evidence before the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. In view of this finding, the petition for making the award a rule of the Court, was dismissed. The Petitioner has impugned the said order by way of this present revision petition.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner u ho is transferee of Site No. 3418, Sector 23-D. Chandigarh, secured a loan of Rs. 14,000 from the Estate Officer. Chandigarh, for the construction of a house on the said site, on the terms and conditions set out in the Security-cum-Mortgage Deed which was executed by the Petitioner with the Estate Officer, on 14th June, 1958. According to Clause 3 of the Security-cum-Mortgage Deed, the Petitioner was required to pay back the amount of loan together with interest, in 30 half yearly instalments. However, the Petitioner made default in making payment of instalments of loan, and to recover the said instalments, the Estate Officer directed the Collector, Chandigarh; to recovery the same as arrears of land revenue. The house of the Petitioner was attached and was auctioned u/s 76 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, on 24th- July, 1970. The sale was confirmed by the Commissioner on 24th November, 1971. The Petitioner challenged the attachment as well as sale, in this Court, and a Division Bench of this Court quashed the sale of the house. In pursuance of the judgment of this Court, the house was released to the Petitioner in December. 1972. The house was again attached for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 11,374 and remained under attachment from 30th December. 1973 to 13th January, 1975. After release of the house to the Petitioner in January, 1975, the Petitioner filed an application for arbitration, under Clause 14 of the Security-cum-Mortgage Deed, before the then Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, for the adjudication of the dispute, on 4th February, 1979. The said application was dismissed, as the learned Finance Secretary was of the view that the reference for arbitration was not competent. Thereupon, the Petitioner filed an application u/s 20 of the Act. in the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class Chandigarh, for the appointment of an Arbitrator and for making reference for the adjudication of the dispute. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class Chandigarh,--vide the order dated 22nd April, 1983. referred the dispute to the arbitration. The concluding para of the judgment reads as under:
As a result of above discussions, the matter in dispute is referred to the arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, for decision. The arbitrator shall give notice to the parties and thereafter, he shall give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their cases and submit his award. The agreement which has been produced by the Respondent be also sent to the arbitrator. The copy of the order be sent to the arbitrator for compliance.
In pursuance of the above judgment, the Petitioner submitted his Claim before the learned Finance Secretary, who was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Petitioner claimed that a sum of Rs. 12,380 was refundable to him as a result of excess payment made by the Petitioner and the recovery effected by the Estate Officer through the Collector, from the tenants, during the period the house remained under attachment. He also submitted that at the time when the house was attached on 17th April, 1968, the house was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 255 per month, and during the period of attachment, it was the duty of the Collector to administer the said property in a proper way and to collect the rent at the rate of Rs. 255 per month. The Petitioner further submitted that a sum of Rs. 12,720 should have been recovered by the Collector and credit to this extent should have been given to the Petitioner''s account. In this way, he claimed that a sum of Rs. 12,380 ought to have been refunded to him.
The Arbitrator after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, concluded that the grievance of the Petitioner is genuine and he has been over-charged by the Estate Officer. However, instead of determining the excess amount which was over-charged by the Estate Officer/Collector, during the two attachments of the said house, the Arbitrator remitted the matter to the Estate Officer for the said purpose. The concluding para of the award reads as under:
Under these circumstances. I award that the Estate Officer should recast the account of the Petitioner carefully and while doing so the Petitioner should be afforded credit of the amount which should have been recovered by the Collector during two attachments of the said house and not of the amount which was actually recovered by the Collector. The Petitioner is directed to produce evidence before the Estate Officer in support of his contention that during the first attachment, his house had been let-out at a monthly rent of Rs. 255 and not at Rs. 178 p.m. as stated by the representative of the Estate Officer. The claim put forward by the Petitioner for payment of interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. is rejected. The Estate Officer is further directed to settle this claim of the Petitioner within a period of one month reckonable from the date of the issue of this award.
The Petitioner thereupon filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act, for making the award a rule of the Court. The said petition was contested by the Respondents. The learned Senior Sub Judge dismissed the said petition holding that the award is vague, indefinite and incomplete, and the arbitrator has left the matter in dispute, undetermined.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner as well as the Respondents agreed before the learned Senior Sub Judge and also gave in writing that the award be sent back to the arbitrator as he has not determined the matter referred to him.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the view that the learned Senior Sub Judge, instead of dismissing the application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act, ought to have remitted the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration as he has left the matter referred to him, for adjudication of the dispute, undetermined. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act provides that where the Arbitrator has left undetermined any of the matters referred to arbitration, or where it determines any matter not referred to arbitration and such matter cannot be separated without affecting the determination of the matters referred, the Court may remit the award to the Arbitrator or umpire for reconsideration upon such terms as it thinks fit. Clause (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, provides that the Court may remit the award for reconsideration before the Arbitrator:
(a) where the award has left undetermined any of the matters referred to arbitration; or
(b) where the award determines any matter not referred to arbitration and such matter cannot be separated, from the award without affecting the matters referred for determination.
When such matters cannot be separated, the proper remedy is that mentioned in Sub-section (a) of Section 15 of the Act.
In the present case, the Arbitrator was required to determine the claim set out by the Petitioner before him. The Arbitrator in his award, dated 19th February, 1985 has concluded that the Petitioner''s grievance is genuine and he has been over-charged by the Estate Officer, but instead of determining as to the amount which was over-charged by the Estate Officer, the Arbitrator sent, back the matter to the Estate Officer, to determine the amount. The Petitioner was also directed to produce evidence before the Estate Officer in support of his claim. Once the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, it was he who had to determine the claim: of the Petitioner instead of asking someone else to decide on his behalf. In view of this, he left the matter referred to him, undetermined. The learned Senior Sub Judge while dismissing the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act, has also observed:
The arbitrator has not determined the differences between the parties rather he has left the matter in dispute undecided and directed the parties to lead evidence before the Estate Officer, Chandigarh.
The learned Senior Sub Judge in view of this finding ought to have remitted the award under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, to the Arbitrator for reconsideration and to determine finally the claim of the Petitioner, in terms of reference dated 22nd April, 1983. Thus, the impugned order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, dismissing the petition under Sections 14 and 17, of the Act, for making the award a rule of the Court, is liable to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, but with no order as to costs. The case is remanded back to the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, who shall remit the award to the Arbitrator with a direction to determine the matter finally within four months from the date the parties appear before the arbitrator.
The parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh on 8th July, 1991.