Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the above decision it has also been held that the words "enter on the reference" occurring in Rule 3 of the I Schedule are not synonimous with the words "to act" and that the words "to act" are more comprehensive and of a wider import than the words "to enter on the reference".

17. In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the arbitrators entered on the reference on 24-1-1972 itself. The letter by the fourth respondent has been witten to the arbitrators requesting them to pass the award within 4 months from that date. The award has been passed within 4 months from the date of that letter. But it is contended by Sri Tarakaram that the question of a party calling upon the arbitrators to act would arise only where they had not acted and that as in this case the arbitrators had not only inquired the parties and collected all the particulars but had also prepared lists of all the properties to be allotted to each member, there was no occasion for the fourth respondent asking the arbitrators to act and that Ex. P12, letter, cannot therefore be construed as a notice to act, which is contemplated in Rule 3. He relied upon the decision in Ghasilal Todi v. Biswnath Kerwal, to contend that once the time for making the award starts running by the arbitrators entering upon reference or by a party giving a notice to the arbitrators to act it does not get extended eithe by the issue of a notice by the party in the former case or by the arbitrators entering on the reference in the latter case and that the award has to be passed within 4 months. In view of the clear decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Lal's case it cannot be said that once the arbitrators enter on reference they have to make the award withn 4 months from the date of entering on the reference and that a notice given by a party to the arbitrators to act within 4 months from the date on which the arbitrators entered on the reference would not extend the time cannot be accepted. In fact the decision in Ghasilal Todi's. case also does not support such contention which runs counter to the dictum of the Supreme Court. In Ghasilal Todi's case a letter dated 24-7-1961 was written by the party requesting the arbitrator to enter upon the reference and the arbitrator actually entered on the reference on 17-3-1962 and passed the award on 23-5-1962. It was held that as 4 months expired after the arbitrator called upon to act, the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to enter upon the reference at any time thereafter and make a valid award within 4 months from the date of entering upon reference. In fact at page 469 the learned Judge, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankarlal's case, has observed that if within the period of 4 months of being called upon to act the arbitrator had entered upon the reference then as per the view of the Supreme Court the limitation would have begun to run not from the previous date but from the date on which the arbtirator entered upon the reference. Because in that case the arbitrator entered on reference more than 4 months after the issue of notice by the party to act, the Calcutta High Court has held that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass the award and it was invalid.