ORDER
1. Civil Revision No. 206 of 1993 is directed against the order dated 12-1-1993 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur allowing the plaintiffs application (Paper No. 64C) and directing the arbitrators to grant interim award of rupees 2 Lakhs in Original Suit No. 215 of 1991. Civil Revision No. 292 of 1993 is directed against the order dated 3-4-1993 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur allowing the plaintiff's application (Paper No. 85C) and confirming the interim award and making the same rule of the court in Original Suit No. 215 of 1991. Both these revisions which arise out of the same proceedings have been connected and are being heard and decided together.
2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for purposes of the present revision, are that Om Construction & Supply Co. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-opposite party) by means of two agreements dated 13-2-1989 and 10-11-1989 entered into a building contract with the defendant-applicant. The said agreements had an arbitration clause. Due to certain reasons which are not important for purposes of the present revisions, the contract could not be completed and a dispute arose between the parties regarding measurement of the work and payment to be made to the plaintiff-opposite party. Invoking the arbitration clause the plaintiff-opposite party filed Suit No. 215of 1991 in the court of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the dispute for arbitration in respect of the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party. The suit was contested by the defendant-applicant by filing a Written statement. Vide the order dated 21-2-1992 the court below directed the parties to submit their lists of arbitrators and out of the respective lists submitted by the parties appointed one Shri Judgal Kishore Verma, retired Deputy Chief Engineer, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur and Shri B. Ram, F. A. & C. A.O. {E & B), N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur as arbitrators. The former was appointed out of the list submitted by the plaintiff-opposite party and the latter out of the list submitted by the defendant-applicant. The court further directed the arbitrators to decide the dispute within three months from the date of receipt of information. According to the defendant-applicant, the arbitrators entered into reference on 30-4-1992 on which date they had their first meeting. Subsequently one of the arbitrators, namely Shri B. Ram was transferred to New Delhi and the award could not be made within the time granted by the court. The plaintiff as well as the other arbitrator, Shri J.K. Verma, filed applications before the court below for appointing another arbitrator in place of Shri B. Ram whereas Shri B. Ram filed an application for extending the time for the submission of the award till April, 1993. In the meantime, the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application (paper No. 64C) for a direction to the arbitrators to make an interim award of Rs. 2,38,000/-. The defendant-applicant filed objections to the said application, inter alia, on the ground that no interim award could be made in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party as the defendant-applicant had a cross claim against the plaintiff-opposite party for a sum of Rs. Seven Lacs and odd on account of loss suffered by the defendant-applicant. By the impugned order dated 12-1-1993 the court below directed the arbitrators to make an interim award of Rs. Two lacs in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party. It is this order which has been challenged by the defendant-applicant by means of revision No. 206 of 1993 before this Court. It appears that on the basis of the said order dated 12-11-1993 passed by the court below, the arbitrator Shri J.K. Verma, nominated by the plaintiff-opposite party, on 31-3-1993 submitted an interim awards of Rs. Two lacs in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party. The court below thereafter vide the order dated 3-4-1993 made the interim award a rule of the court. It is this order dated 3-4-1993 which has been challenged by the defendant-applicant in revision No. 292 of 1993.
3. I have heard Shri V.K. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant and Shri H.S. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite party. I have also perused the record of the aforesaid two revisions and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the revisions are being finally decided together at the admission stage itself.
4. The main submission of Shri Goel, learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Revision No. 206 of 1993 is that the civil court by giving a direction to the arbitrators to make an interim award and that too for a specific sum has acted with manifest illegality and in excess of its jurisdiction. Secondly, it has been submitted that the court below has acted illegally in giving directions in the operative portion of the order dated 12-1-1993 that the award may be given by any of the arbitrators who is found working. Such a direction cannot be given. Besides, such an interim award given by one of the arbitrators would be illegal and invalid. On the other hand, it has been contended by Shri Tripathi on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party that the revision against an interlocutory order passed by the court below directing the arbitrators to give an interim award did not amount to a case decided and, therefore, the revision before this Court was not maintainable. Secondly, it has been contended that the defendant-applicant has already filed an application on 9-4-1993 for setting aside the interim award and as it has already claimed the said relief before the court below, this court should not exercise its revisional jurisdiction in favour of the defendant-applicant. Thirdly, it has been contended that under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitrators have been empowered to give interim awards and the civil court before which the suit was pending, could give directions to the arbitrators including a direction to give interim award. Besides, it was apparent from the order that the interim award was not final and it was to be adjusted in the final award to be given by the arbitrators. It has further been contended that the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant was over rupees Seven lacs whereasthe interim award which was directed tro be given by the court below was only for rupees Two lacs. Besides, admittedly the plaintiff had given a security to the defendant of rupees Two lacs in pursuance of the two agreements and, therefore, also in equity the plaintiff was entitled to the refund of the said amount and the discretionary order passed by the court below should not be interfered with by this Court. It has also been contended that the award being only interim it does not become invalid if it has been signed by one of the especially in view of the fact that the arbitrators nominated by the defendant, namely Shri B. Ram had been transferred and the interim award on the stamp paper which was sent to Shri B. Ram had not been signed by him though the papers had been received by his clerk one Shri Ghanshyam, who had been receiving the papers earlier as well. In a situation in which one of the arbitrators has refused to sign the interim award does not become illegal or invalid. It has also been seriously contended that under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act the court has every power to pass any such orders in the interest of justice and the Second Schedule to the Act was not exhaustive. The court can pass interim injunctions in proceedings before the arbitrators and an interim award was also in the nature of an injunction made to secure payment of money in favour of one of the parties. As such also the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. So far as the first submission made by the plaintiff-opposite party is concerned, I am unable to agree with the submission that the impunged order passed by the court below does not amount to a case decided. It will be noticed from the impugned order that the court below had directed the arbitrators to pass an interim award of rupees Two lacs and one of the arbitrators, namely Shri J. K. Verma, passed an interim award of rupees Two lacs in terms of the said order. Such an order, in ray opinion, cannot be termed to be an interlocutory order. Besides, interim award is also an award and the very fact that the court has made the same a rule of the court, would further show that the order was final in nature.
5. So far as the second submission is concerned, I am of the view that merely because the defend ant-applicant has also filed an application (which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 1993) before the court below for setting aside the ex parte interim award and the said matter is still pending before the court below, the present revision does not become infructuous or not maintainable. It is note-worthy that revision No. 206 of 1993 is directed against the order passed by the court below directing the arbitrator to pass an interim award of rupees two lacs. Misc. Case No. 19 of 1993 has been filed with a prayer to set aside the ex parte interim award made by one of the arbitrators on 31-3-1993. The present revision and Misc. Case No. 19 of 1993, are, therefore, against different orders. There is, therefore, no substance in this argument of learned counsel either.
6. So far as the third submission made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party is concerned, it is no doubt true that under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act a power has been given to the arbitrators to pass interim awards but these awards have to be passed by the arbitrators themselves and n6t on the direction given by the court to pass an award for a specific sum. Similarly, I do not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party that interim awards are also in the nature of an injunction for safeguarding the money due to one of the parties and as such the same is covered by the provisions of Section 41 of the Act and the Second Schedule to the Act. 1 also do not agree with thcisubmission made by learned counsel that Second Schedule to the Act is not exhaustive and orders can be passed by the court wherein the,proceedings of the Suit are pending to give directions to the arbitrators if the interest of justice and equity so demand. It was held in the case of P.K. Thresia v. The Government of State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1979 Ker 212 that when the proceedings are before the arbtirator, the court's function is only to aid the arbitration proceedings by making such orders under Section 41(b) read with the matters set out in the Second Schedule, for the purpose of, and in relation to, proceedings before the arbitrator. In the said case where a contractor was dissatisfied with the report of the Commissioner who was appointed to ascertain the quantum of work by taking measurement of the work done, it was held that he could not invoke the provisions of Order 26, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for asking the court to examine the Commissioner and for seeking injunction for restraining the Government from proceeding with the work. Further it was held that it was for the arbitrator to evaluate the Commissioner's report and determine the quantum of work and the court could not be indirectly asked to determine the quantum of the work done. Similarly, it has been held by our Court in the case of Anand Prakash v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in AIR 1968 All 22 : (1967 All LJ 454) that the question of passing an order of stay or injunction pending the determination of the referred dispute is foreign to the concept of an interim award, an interim order of injunction cannot be held to be an interim award. I respectfully agree with the views expressed in the cases mentioned above and also in the case of Union of India v. M/s. International Chemical Corporation, reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 99, that subsection (a) of Section 41 of the Act regulates the procedure to be followed in dealing with the applications for interim injunction or for securing the amount in difference in the reference, even when the arbitration proceedings are pending before the arbitrators but the power and jurisdiction of the court conferred under Section 41(b) cannot be exercised if the exercise of such power would prejudice any power which might be vested in an arbitrator or umpire for making orders with respect to any such matters. Consequently, I find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant-applicant that the civil court had no jurisdiction to direct the arbitrators to give an interim award and that1 too for a specific sum of rupees two lacs. By doing so the court below has introduced in the jurisdiction of the arbitrators which it was not empowered to do in the garb of exercising powers under Section 41(1) of the Act.
7. The second submission of learned counsel for the defendant-applicant that the -arbitrator, Shri J.K. Verma, in the facts of the present case could not have given the interim award singly has also sufficient force. Admittedly the court had appointed two arbitrators who were still functioning as the court below had rejected the application filed by the arbitrator, Shri J. K. Verma, as well as the plaintiff for substituting another arbitrator in place of Shri B. Ram. I am of the view that the court below could not have passed an order directing one of the arbitrators, who may be found to be working, to pass the impugned award. It is noteworthy that on 30-3-1993 on the application (paper No. 80 C) filed by the plaintiff-opposite party the Court below passed the following orders:--
"80C. by plaintiff to send stamp paper filed to Shri J.K. Verma in compliance of the order dated 12-1-1993.
Heard. The order dated 12-1-1993 is required to be complied by the arbitrator whosoever is acting. Let the stamp paper filed by the plaintiff be sent to arbitrator with direction that the order dated 12-1-1993 be complied and the court be informed accordingly."
I, therefore, find substance in the submission made by 'the defendant-applicant that the court below was fully aware that only one of the arbitrators was functioning and though in the body of the order dated 12-1-1993 direction for an interim award was given to the arbitrators, yet the court meant that the order was to be complied with by Shri J.K. Verma, the arbitrator nominated by the plain-tiff. It has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of J. Kuppuswami Chetty v. B. V. Anantha Ramier, reported in AIR 1948 Mad 40, that where a reference is to two or more named arbitrators, all the arbitrators must act together. If one of them declines to act during the arbitration proceedings and the award is made by the remaining arbitrators after consideration of the whole matters in dispute, the award is invalid and cannot stand even though there might be provision in the arbitration agreement that the majority view should prevail. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raja Brijendra Singh v. Butisaha, reported in AIR 1962 MP 377. In the said case it was held that where one out of three arbitrators had resigned and an unanimous decision was given by two arbitrators the said decision would be binding on the parties included in the agreement and the award would not be invalid I have perused the aforesaid decision and I find that the same is quite distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In that case the agreement contained a clause to the effect that should one of the arbitrators resigned, the unanimous decision of the other two would be binding oh the parties and the award given by the remaining, arbitrators would be binding oh the parties and the'award could not be challenged oh the ground that the two arbitrators were not competent to give the award. In the present case there is no such agreement. Besides; the arbitrator. B. Ram, had not resigned. On the other hand, he had prayed for extension of time to give the award. In such a situation the award by one of the arbitrators would be in my view, invalid and could not be acted upon.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has, however, urged that in the impugned order itself the court below has observed that the amount of interim award will be adjusted in the final award, and, therefore, even if the interim award has been signed by one of the arbitrators that would not become invalid. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel. It is well settled that an interim award is also an award under subjection (2) of Section 27 It can, therefore; be made in the same manner as an award as held by this court in the case of Anand Prakash v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in AIR 1968 All 22 (supra) that an interim award has to be made in the same manner as an award and only after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them. Where an interim award is passed ex parte, it cannot be treated as an interim award as the arbitrator has not decided any part of the dispute referred to arbitration. The interim award must determine some part of the dispute referred to by the arbitrator. In the facts on the present case it will be noticed that the arbitrator, Shri J.K. Verma, had passed the interim award as directed by the court below in the order dated 12-1-1993 without deciding any part of the dispute referred to him. He has not applied his mind to the fact whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the said sum. For the said purpose it was required by the arbitrator to take into consideration such, evidence as adduced by the parties. In the objections filed to the application for interim award (paper No. 64C) the defen-danti-applicant pleaded that a sum of rupees Seven lacs and odd would be due to the defendant from the plaintiff as the loss suffered by the defendant on account of non-completion of the contract. The arbitrator has not applied his mind to this aspect either and has mechanically passed the interim award on the direction of the civil court. Consequently, I am of the view that the order dated 12-1-1993 of the court below impugned in Civil Revision No. 206 of 1993 cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.
9, So far as Civil Revision No. 292 of 1993 is concerned, it is noteworthy that it is directed against the consequential order dated 3-4-1993 passed by the court below confirming the interim award and making the same rule of the court. I have already held that the interim award passed on the direction of the court below dated 12-1-1993 cannot be legally sustained and as such the same is void and illegal. The order dated 3-4-1993, there-fore, also becomes illegal and void. That apart, 1 find force in the submission of learned counsel for the defendant-applicant that the order dated 3-4-1993 making the interim award rule of the court is also invalid and illegal. as the said order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the defendant to file objection and was passed without waiting for the statutory period of 30 days as required under Section 119(b) of the Limitation Act. It will be noticed that the interim award given by the arbitrator, Shri J.K. Verma, was dated 31-3-1993. Three days thereafter on 3-4-1993 the court below had passed the order making the interim award rule of the court. Section 17 of the Act lays down that the court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made after refusing it, proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow. Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of 30 days for making an application for setting aside an award or remitting it for reconsideration. These words, therefore, make it incumbent upon the court to await for 30 days from the date on which notice of filing of the award is given to the parties. Any order or decree passed on the award before the expiry of the said period, the' procedure is illegal and the decree or the order would be liable to be set asidei (See Ramji Lal v. Ram Sanehi Lal, AIR 1978 All 351. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has, however, contended that the defendant-applicant naving already filed an application for setting aside the interim award, the present revision would not be maintainable. Besides, the order cannot be challenged by the defendant as it did not file any objection to the interim award and the counsel appearing for the defendant had refused to accept the copy of the same. I am unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel. I am of the view that the legal position is clear that the notice of the award has to be given to the parties and that the court has to wait for 30days before passing an order making the award rule of the court. It has been held by a Division Bench of our Court in the case of Udit Singh v. Ram Lakhan Singh reported in AIR 1933 All 313, that where a court accepts an award filed by the arbitrator without giving to the parties time to file objection to the award, there is material irregularity in the exercise of discretion and the order accepting the award should be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order dated 3-4-1993 making the interim award dated 31 -3-1993 a rule of the court can not be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
10. Lastly it has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party that the matter is pending before the trial court for over three years and the arbitrator appointed by the defendant-applicant has not cooperated in any manner. He has been transferred from Gorakhpur and it is not possible for him to continue with the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, some other arbitrator may be appointed in place of Shri B. Ram the arbitrator nominated by the defendant. The Court has been informed that an application to this effect has already been filed before the court below. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case where the plaintiff-opposite party is claiming heavy amount from the defendant-applicant and in view of the fact that the arbitrator 'nominated by the defendant-applicant has been transferred and for certain reasons the arbitrator proceedings have been delayed whereby the plaintiff must be suffering heavy loss, I consider it appropriate to direct the.court below to consider the application of the plaintiff-opposite party for nominating another arbitrator in place of Shri B. Ram in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the said application, if such an order has not yet been passed, within a period of one month from the date of the filing of a certified copy of this order before the said court.
11. As a result, both the Civil Revisions No. 206 of 1993 and 292 of 1993 are allowed and the impugned orders dated 12-1-1993 and 3-4-1993 passed by the the VIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur are hereby set aside. The court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of these revisions.
13. Order accordingly.