1988 PLP 1872 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 17‑‑No statutory obligation is imposed under S.17 on Court to take upon itself the role of a party and to fish out defects in an award‑‑In absence of any objection to award and any patent legal defect on face of such award, Court was justified to make award, the rule of Court. Abdul Latif A. Shakoor for Appellant. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ This appeal is directed against an order, dated 5‑10‑1987 passed by a learned Single Judge in Suit No 738 of 1983 dismissing the C . M. A . 1521 of 1987 filed by the present appellant and one Karim Jeeva, who were defendants 1 and 8 in the said suit for setting aside the order, dated 16‑9‑1987 making the award rule of the Court.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that there was some dispute between the shareholders of the appellant Company which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator gave an award on 9‑3‑1983. One of the parties filed objection to the award but when it had come up for hearing, he withdrew the same and, therefore, the Award was made rule of the Court by the aforesaid order, dated 16‑3‑1987. It appears that the appellant and said Karim Jeeva filed .aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Application after the expiry of some time for setting aside the above order of making award rule of the Court. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal has dismissed the above application. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Abdul Latif A. Shakoor, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that even if there were no objections on record, it was the duty of the Court under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to have, examined the legality of the award and that the appellant was noted to urge legal grounds against the award even without filling of any objection. It has been further submitted that no nhje0ons were filed by the appellant as one of the parties had already filed the objections. In our view, the appellant has no locus standi to file any objections to the award and, therefore, apparently they were not filed. The appellant is a Private Limited Company. The dispute was inter se between the shareholders. As regards the merits, we may observe that in the absence of any objection to the Award and any patent legal defect on the face of the award, the learned Single Judge was justified to make the award rule of the Court. In our view, section 17 of the Arbitration Act does not impose any statutory obligation on the part of the Court to take upon itself the role of a party and to fish out defects in an award. The other contention of Mr. Abdul Latif A. Shakoor is also untenable, namely, that a party has any vested right to urge objections to an award without filing the same. If we were to accept the above contention, there will be no need to file any objection within the statutory period and to take the other side by surprise. This will lead to chaos and uncertainty. We may also observe that the learned Single Judge has dilated upon the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant in detail. The order under appeal seems to be in consonance with law. The above appeal has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./E‑12/K Appeal dismissed.