Subbiah Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Through Its Superintendent Engineer, (Highways) Rural Roads Division and anr.

Subbiah vs State of Tamil Nadu, Through Its Superintendent Engineer, (Highways) Rural Roads Division and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 08, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/799763

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/799763
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Jayasimha Babu and ;N.V. Balasubramanian, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 08, 2003
Case Number: L.P.A. No. 188 of 1999 and C.M.P. No. 17159 of 1999
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - Since the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge has not considered the merits of the case, the trial court has to go into the merits of the matter.

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 28

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbiah

Advocate S. John Sundarlal Suresh, Adv. for ;P. Peppin Fernando, Adv.

Respondent

State of Tamil Nadu, Through Its Superintendent Engineer, (Highways) Rural Roads Division and anr.

Advocate M.C. Swamy, Special Government Pleader (CS)

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 28
Cases Referred: State of Punjab v. Hardyal
Reported In: 2003(1)CTC647

Excerpt

- - since the trial court as well as the learned single judge has not considered the merits of the case, the trial court has to go into the merits of the matter......it is against the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.2. we heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned special government pleader. we find that before the arbitrator, both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings willingly and without raising any objection even after the expiry of four months. the supreme court in state of punjab v. hardyal, : has held that the power to extend time for making the award even after the expiry of the period prescribed for making the award can be exercised by the appellate court. the supreme court has also held that the fact that the parties to the agreement have taken part in the arbitration proceedings willingly would constitute a relevant circumstance to be taken into account for extending the time for passing the award.3. since both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings willingly even after the expiry of the time limit for making the award and the award has also been passed, we are of the view that it is a fit case that this court should exercise the power to extend the period for making the award. accordingly, the time for passing the award is extended till the date when the award was passed. since the trial court as well as the learned single judge has not considered the merits of the case, the trial court has to go into the merits of the matter. accordingly, we set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts and remit the matter to the trial court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. the appeal is ordered accordingly. no costs. consequently, c.m.p. no. 17159 of 1999 is closed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1999 in C.M.A. No. 801 of J991 on the file of this Court wherein learned Single Judge held that the arbitrator has no right to extend the time beyond four months' period and even if the parties consent for extension of time, the award would be vitiated by illegality and it would become a non-est. Learned Single Judge has also held that the Court alone has the right to extend the period of time. In this view of the matter, learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. It is against the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Government Pleader. We find that before the arbitrator, both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings willingly and without raising any objection even after the expiry of four months. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Hardyal, : has held that the power to extend time for making the award even after the expiry of the period prescribed for making the award can be exercised by the appellate Court. The Supreme Court has also held that the fact that the parties to the agreement have taken part in the arbitration proceedings willingly would constitute a relevant circumstance to be taken into account for extending the time for passing the award.

3. Since both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings willingly even after the expiry of the time limit for making the award and the award has also been passed, we are of the view that it is a fit case that this Court should exercise the power to extend the period for making the award. Accordingly, the time for passing the award is extended till the date when the award was passed. Since the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge has not considered the merits of the case, the trial court has to go into the merits of the matter. Accordingly, we set aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts and remit the matter to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 17159 of 1999 is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2003 Same Parties Subbiah vs State of Tamil Nadu, Through Its Superintendent En... Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge R. Jayasimha Babu and ;N.V. Balasubramanian, JJ. Acts & Sections Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 28

Arbitration