M/s. Verdhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Lulhiana vs The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala

J.V. Gupta, J.—An award dated 12th October, 1978 was given by the Chief Electrical Inspector, to Government, Punjab, Patiala, as Arbitrator. The said award was filed in Court by the Arbitrator. Notice of filing award was sent to the parties for 13th November, 1978. The Punjab State Electricity Board was served of the said notice on 2nd November 1978. However, the objections to the said award were filed on behalf of the Board 12th December, 1978. Reply to said objections was filed on behalf of the petitioner M/s. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills. The learned Senior Sub-Judge found that the objections were filed beyond limitation as the same were not filed within 30 days from the date of the notice of the filing of the award, which was 2nd November, 1978, whereas the objections were filed on 12th December, 1978 All other issues were decided against the Electricity Board as it was found that the award was not invalid as alleged by the Board. Consequently the objections were dismissed vide order dated 1st February, 1982. Dissatisfied with the same the Board filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusions that the objections were filed within time. It was further found that since the award was not given on a stamp paper it was not a valid award and cannot be looked into and the trial Court was not justified in acting upon it in passing the decree. However, on the short question that the award was not given on a stamp paper, the same was set aside while accepting the objections. Consequently the appeal was accepted and the order of the Court making the award the rule of the Court was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same M/s. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills have filed this petition in this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it has been wrongly held by the lower appellate Court that the objections were filed within time. According to the learned counsel, the notice of the filing of the award was served on the Electricity Board on 2nd November, 1978, the objections filed on 12th December, 1978, being beyond 30 days were barred by time under Article 119 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned counsel the mere fact that the notice was not in the form as prescribed by the High Court u/s 44 of the Act did not mean that the Board had no notice of the filing of the award in Court. Once it is found that the Board was duly informed of the filing of the award in the Court on 2nd November, 1978, the objections should have been filed within 30 days thereof and, therefore, the view taken by the lower appellate Court in this behalf was wrong, whereas the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the objections were filed beyond time. It was further submitted that the award cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that it was not on a stamp paper. At the most it will be only defective and not invalid as defined in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Reference was made to S. Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, .

After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that even if it be assumed that the award was not given on a stamp-piper it cannot be held to be invalid within the meaning of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. At the most it can be said to be defective, which defect can be cured as provided under the Stamp Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e, S. Sarbjit Singh''s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of this finding the question as to whether the objections were filed within time or not is of no consequence, because on merits the award was held to be valid In these circumstances the petition succeeds, the order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court dismissing the objection petition is restored with costs. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16th September, 1985 The trial Court will now make the award the rule of the Court, subject to payment of stamp duty, etc., if any which may be required under the Stamp Act in case the award is found to be not on proper stamp paper. Since the award was given in the year 1978, it is directed that the matter will be disposed of finally within three months thereof. The records of the case be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.