Remitting of award

2012 SCMR 1606 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 14(2)Remitting of awardServing of notices on partiesObject

Object of S.14(2) of Arbitration Act 1940, was to procure the attendance of the parties concerned before the court, after award was filed so as to provide them an opportunity to file objections, if any.

2012 SCMR 1606 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 14(2)Remitting of awardServing of notices on partiesScopeDispute between claimant (appellant) and government department (respondent) resolved through arbitrationArbitrators submitting their award before the court

Claimant, District Attorny and an official representing the Government department making conceding statements before the court to the effect that they would not object to the award

Authority to make conceding statement by said official

Scope

Said official made an application for adjournment in order to file objection to the award but same was dismissed by the Trial Court

High Court set aside decree of Trial Court holding that the official and District Attorney were not empowered to make concessional statements before the Trial Court and that in terms of S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, Trial Court should have served notices on the parties after the arbitrators had filed the award

Validity

Reply to claimant's application for appointment of arbitrators was made by said official on behalf of the Government department

Before arbitration award was submitted in court, said official was representing the Government department and was present on the day the award was filed and continued to appear before the court on subsequent dates

Government department had never questioned the authority of the official to represent it or to make a statement on its behalf

Fact that said official had made an application before the Trial Court for filing objection to the arbitration award showed that he continued to represent the Government department

Executive Engineer (XEN) who represented the Government department along with said official during the arbitration proceedings had also not questioned the authority of the official to make a statement on behalf of the Government department

Said official and District Attorney were present before the Trial Court when the award was filed, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the Government department

Appeal was allowed, judgment and decree of the High Court were set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.