The State of Patlala And East Punjab States Union (now The State of Punjab) and Others vs Messrs Puran Chand Ranga Ram and Another

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, dated the 10th of September, 1962 whereby the learned Judge remitted the award to the Arbitrator for reconsideration u/s 16 of the Arbitration Act and for decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the learned Judge in a dispute between the Punjab State and Messrs Puran Chand Rangi Ram. The award was given by the Arbitrator. Two applications were made to the Court-one by the State for setting aside the award and the other by the present respondents for remittal of the award to the Arbitrator for reconsideration because, according to the respondents, there was a legal error made by the Arbitrator which was patent on the face of the award. The trial Court allowed the application of the respondents and rejected the application of the Punjab State. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been preferred.

Mr. Atma Ram, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary object ion that no appeal is competent against the order remitting an award for reconsideration u/s 16 of the Arbitration Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on the decision in Vengu Ayyar and Another Vs. Yegyam Ayyar and Others, and R.T. Perumal Vs. John Deavin and Another, In the latter decision, the learned Chief Justice observed that order remitting an award is not appealable. The right of appeal is conferred against certain orders specified in section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The order of the type, as specified u/s 16, is not made appealable. It was again observed by the learned Chief Justice that the remedy of the aggrieved party against the bad order of remittal is when the final award is made and is made a rule of the Court. In an appeal against that order, the validity of the order of remittal could be agitated. Therefore, the proper stage for appeal against the order of remittal will be when a revised award is made and it is made a rule of the Court. Till then, the order remitting the award will not be appealable. I am in respectful agreement with the Madras view in R.T. Perumal''s case and it must, therefore, be held tint no appeal is competent against the order remitting the award for reconsideration u/s 16 of the Arbitration Act.

Mr. Anand Mohan Suri, learned counsel for the State, contended that the State had made an application for setting aside the award. Therefore, the refusal of the application of the State amounts to an order u/s 39 of the Act and, thus an appeal lies. So far as this contention is concerned, the short answer to it is that moment the award is sent for reconsideration, there is no award which could be set aside. It is only an award which is not remitted for reconsideration which can be set aside. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel has no force and must be repelled.

For the reasons recorded above, I reject this appeal as incompetent. But there will be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 9th of May, 1966.