SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.P. Misra and U.C. Bnerjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1992 of 1997. D/d. 13.8.2001

WITH

Interlocutory Application Nos. 12-13 of 2000.

(For directions to make the Award Rule of the Court and directions to set aside the award dated 06.12.2000).

WITH

[I.A.Nos. 4-5 in C.A.No.2925/2000& I.A. Nos. 5-8 in C.A.Nos. 2926-2927/2000]

Engineer in Chief - Apppellant

Versus

Ratan Singh & Anr. - Respondents

Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 30 and 33 -Award it self is time - It is not disputed that four months time for making the award has been extended - Award was made within extended time Held, Objection regarding award being not within time is without any substance - Hence Court made the award - Rule of the Court and decree is passed in terms of the award.

[Para 3]

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent No.1 who is appearing in person.

2. We find, in this case, in the first Award the amount awarded in favour of the respondents was about rupees 16 lacs. Thereafter, the second Arbitrator appointed by this Court awarded about rupees 3 lacs in favour of the respondents. The question arose for refund from the respondents. The objections is filed by the respondents, so far the second Award is concerned, regarding not to make the Award Rule of the Court and on the last occasion submission was also made that he is entitled to 16 lacs from the appellants. We directed to file the Award in this Court which has been filed by now. According to the appellants, the amount is refundable from the respondents to the appellants which comes to about 13 lacs 30 thousand. However, we want to make it clear, we are not making adjudication on this issue which has led to objections, if any, by the respondents before the Executing Court.

3. So far the objections to the present Award is concerned, we find the main and the central point seems to be, the time for making the Award which was to be by the 6th August, 2000 and extendable by the said period since 8th August, 2000, hence, the Award itself is a time. It is not in dispute, time for four months has been extended by the Court and the Award itself has been made on 4th August, 2000 which is within the period of four months, even if it is taken from the date prior also. We have also heard learned respondent No.1 in person and have gone through the other grounds raised in the objections, hence, we do not any sustainable ground raised therein which calls for our interference. Accordingly we make the Award Rule of the Court and decree is passed in terms of the Award.

4. The I.A S. are ordered accordingly. Costs on the parties

.