This writ petition is filed challenging consequential action initiated by the Railway based on an arbitral award.
2. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had executed an agreement with the Railway. The disputes and differences with regard to the licence was agreed to be resolved through arbitration. This agreement on arbitration is referrable to be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioner's father filed O.S.No.281/1986 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. In the above judgment, a retired District Judge M.K.Brahmadathan Namboodiripad was appointed as the Arbitrator. It appears that no action was taken to resolve the disputes pursuant to the directions of the civil court appointing the Arbitrator. The Railway proceeded to evict the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest by invoking Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The order passed by the Railway Authorities under the above Act was challenged before the Additional District Court, Kozhikode. The District Court allowed the appeal holding that disputes are yet to be resolved through the Arbitration. Challenging the order passed by the District Court, the Railway filed revision before this Court. In the revision, this Court suggested appointing another Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes. The suggestion was accepted by both sides and parties were referred to arbitration. Accordingly, Ext.P7 award was passed by the Arbitrator. The revision was disposed on 12.12.2008. The petitioner herein requested the Arbitrator, who is the third respondent herein to file the award before the civil court so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the award. It appears that no steps have been taken by the Arbitrator to file the award before the civil court. The petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition consequent upon the refusal of the third respondent Arbitrator to file the award before the competent civil court and also challenging the proceedings initiated by the Railway against the petitioner by invoking the Revenue Recovery Act and also Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Railway would submit that the present award passed by the Arbitrator as per Ext.P7 is referrable to an award passed by the Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further submits that no writ would lie against the third respondent to command him to file the award before the civil court.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of the Arbitrator by this Court is continuation of exercise earlier made by the Sub Court, Kozhikode in O.S.No.281/1986.
5. I am not venturing into the merits of the controversy to decide whether the award passed is one under the Arbitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If the petitioner has a case that the award passed by the third respondent is in terms of Arbitration Act, 1940, he need not have waited the Arbitrator to file the award before the competent court. In this regard, it is apposite to quote Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940:
“14(1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.
(2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.
(3) An award remitted under sub-section (1) shall case under clause (b) of section 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of , the award.”
6. Section 14(2) clearly states that either by arbitrators or at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or if so directed by the Court cause the award to be filed in court.
7. Therefore, the petitioner has remedy before the court competent to entertain the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. As has been noted, it is not for this Court to decide whether the award passed in Ext.P7 is in conformity with the Arbitration Act, 1940 or under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has a case that the award is in conformity with the Arbitration Act, 1940, this Court is only pointing out the remedy available to the petitioner under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus, this Court has entertained this writ petition only in regard to the consequential action initiated by the Railway based on the award.
The above actions are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, there shall be a direction to keep all consequential actions pursuant to Ext.P7 award in abeyance for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy available under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln