Madras High Court
Muthukutti Nayakan vs Acha Nayakan And Ors. on 10 April, 1894
Equivalent citations: (1895)ILR 18MAD22
JUDGMENT
1. It is argued that no time having been fixed for the making of the award, the award is invalid. We cannot accede to this contention. Section 508 is directory merely and not mandatory, as observed in Har Narain Singh v. Bhagivant Kuar I.L.R. 10 All. 137, and the mere omission to fix a time is not fatal. In the case before us the award was not made till about a year after the submission to arbitration, but there is no allegation that either party attempted to recede from the submission; and, having regard to the fact that rights to immoveable property were in question, it is not unreasonable to hold that the parties did not consider there was any undue delay. Under these circumstances, we must disallow the objection that the award is invalid under the final clause of Section 521.
2. Another objection is that the award was not signed by the arbitrators in each other's presence. We consider it sufficient, if they all agreed to it as provided in Section 516. There is no provision of law requiring them to sign in the presence of each other--Bhabasundari Dasi v. Makhunlal Dey 8 B.L.R. 128.
3. It is next urged that some of the arbitrators were absent from a certain meeting. There is no specific allegation or issue as to this, nor is there evidence as to what was the object of that meeting. The evidence of one witness, who speaks to such absence, is contradicted by other witnesses examined in the case, and we are unable to give any weight to the objection.
4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, and so also is the petition under Section 622.