vil Appeal Nos
3236 39 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 72
1983 of the Bombay High Court in FCA Nos
35B 36B 37B  38B of 1981
Ashok H Desai Solicitor General Ravinder Narain Aditya Narain Rajan Narain section Sukumaran DN Mishra and Pallav Sishodia for the Appellant
GL Sanghi SK Mehta Dhruv Mehta and Aman Vachher for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
The above four appeals on special leave by the appellant were filed against the judgment and order dated February 7 1983 made by the Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court in First Civil Appeal Nos
35B to 38B of 1981 dis posing of all the four appeals field by the appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Panaji Goa dated 2681981 confirming four different awards by an arbitrator appointed in pursuance to the agreement between the parties
Appeal No 35 of 1981 relates to the award awarding to the respondent against the appellant Rs27509113
Appeal No 36 of 1981 relates to an award awarding to the respondent a sum of Rs18896836
Appeal No 37 of 1981 relates to an award awarding to the respondent Rs33623036 and Appeal No 38 of 1981 relates to an award awarding to the respondent Rs4632132
The facts leading to these appeals are as follows The appellant Goa Daman  Diu Housing Board entered into two contracts on 15372 and one contract each on 11773 and on 4773 with the respondent for the construc tion of tenements at Vasgoda Gama Goa
The appellant ac cepted two tenders of the respondent on 9372 and remaining two on 24273
There was a time limit in all the aforesaid four contracts for the completion of the work referred to therein
Several extensions were granted to the respondent for completing the work out the respondent failed to com plete the construction 907 work undertaken by him under the said four contracts
On July 1 1975 the appellant issued a notice to the respondent under clause 3 of the said contract for exercising the right of termination in view of the fact that the respondent was unable to fulfil the contractual obligation of completing the construction work in spite of the various extensions granted to the respondent
On July 14 1975 the Engineer in Charge of the appellant Board exercised its unilateral right of terminating the contract under clause 3 of the agreement in view of the fact that the respondent did not complete the work of construction undertaken by him in spite of various extentions granted to him
On July 31 1975 the Chairman of the appellant board confirmed that all the four contracts stood rescinded
On May 17 1976 the respondent served a notice to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had rescinded the work contracts
The respondent stated therein various reasons why the work could not be completed
Thereafter in April 1978 the appellant filed a suit claiming damages for a sum of Rs43878696 with interest against the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Panaji Goa
Subsequently an application was filed by the respondent under section 34 of the for stay of the suit
Respondent also made another application to the Court under section 20 of the for directing the Housing Board to file the arbitration agreement in Court and in pursuance of clause 25 of the agreement to appoint an arbitrator
Accord ingly the Court by its order dated 2821979 had the agree ment between the parties filed in court and directed the Housing Board to appoint an arbitrator
On March 29 1979 Shri JS Pinto retired Superintending Engineer was ap pointed as Arbitrator
The Arbitrator on March 23 1981 submitted four awards granting the claims of the respondent as stated hereinbefore on the basis that the appellant was responsible for the slow progress and non completion of work and the work could not be completed as the contract was terminated by the appel lant the Housing Board
The said award was filed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Panaji by the Arbi trator on 31st March 1981 for making the award Rule of the Court
The appellant submitted his objections for setting aside the awards on April 27 1981 on the grounds inter alia that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself by not framing the main issue ie whether or not the claimant abandoned the work and thereby committed breach of the agreement
The Arbitrator misconducted himself by ignoring the letter of termination wherein it Was clearly stated that the termina tion has been done on account of the abandonment of the work by the claimants the learned Arbitrator failed to decide upon the 908 question of the abandonment of work and has wholly side tracked the issue the learned Arbitrator misconducted himself by not giving reasons for the award as required under the agreement under which he was appointed
The learned Civil Judge Senior Division Panaji by his Order dated 26th August 1981 rejected all the objections raised on behalf of the appellant against the said awards and confirmed the same
All the four impugned awards have been made Rule of the Court
The appellant thereafter filed the aforesaid First Civil Appeal Nos 35B 36B 37B and 38B of 1981 against the said Order of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Panaji Goa on the ground that the Civil Judge did not consider that the Arbitrator misconducted himself in making the awards without recording any reasons for the same even though the claim was Rs50000 and above as provided in clause 25 of the agreement between the parties and as such the awards should have been set aside by the Court
The High Court held that having regard to the clause 25 of the terms of the agreement specifically providing that in all cases where amount of claim in dispute is Rs50000 and above the arbitrator was bound to give reasons for his award
The statements that has been made by the Arbitrator while giving his findings could not be considered to be the reasoning for his finding of the award
The Court also held that The award no where contains any reasoning for the same nor does it even obliquely mentions that in giving his findings the Arbitrator has even sought to adopt the reasoning of either of the parties
In our view as the obligation of the Arbitrator under Clause 25 of the agreement stands the reasons should appear to be so in this case
 It was further held that as the arbitrator failed to give reasons for the award it would be a misconduct on his part and the award was liable to be vitiated on that ground
The Court allowed all the appeals
The order of the lower court was set aside and the awards were remanded back to the arbitrator for giving reasons for the same as required under clause 25 of the arbitration agreement and thereafter to file the same in the court of Civil Judge Panaji within eight weeks after the order is served on him
909 Against this judgment and order the impugned appeals by special leave were filed
The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has contended that the High Court acted illegally in not consid ering at all that the arbitrator did not record any reasons for making awards allowing the claims each of which exceeds Rs50000 as provided under clause 25 of the arbitration agreement and as such the arbitrator has misconducted him self in the proceedings and instead of sending the awards made by the arbitrator to him for recording his reasons ought to have set aside the awards under section 30 of the 
It has also been contended that the High Court though it held that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct and the awards made by him were liable to be vitiated on that ground yet inspite of setting aside the awards they were sent to the arbitrator for recording rea sons which is totally unwarranted by law
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respond ent on the other hand submitted that the awards made by the arbitrator after hearing the parties cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted as the same were made after con sidering all papers and documents filed by the parties and after duly hearing the parties
As such there was no ille gality nor any misconduct committed in making the awards
The arbitrator has fairly considered the issues and made the awards in question
The misconduct if any on the part of the arbitrator does not concern with the probity and impar tiality of the arbitrator
The only allegation against the arbitrator is that he has not recorded the reasons for the awards made by him as per term of clause 25 of the arbitra tion agreement
It has therefore been contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent that the order of the High Court in remanding the awards to the arbitrator for recording reasons clearly fails within the purview of section 161c of the as the objec tion to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it
It does not fail within the provision of section 30 of the said act in as much as the arbitrator has not miscon ducted himself or the proceedings and the awards in question have not been improperly procured
Several decisions have been cited at the bar in support of the respective conten tions advanced by the counsel for the parties
Before considering the question whether the directions made by the High Court in remitting the award to the Arbi trator for giving reasons do fall within the purview of Section 16 of the  it is appropriate to set out the relevant provisions of section 161 910 Sec
161 The Court may from time to time remit the award or any matter referred to arbitration to the arbitrators or umpire for reconsideration upon such terms as it thinks fit a where the award has left undetermined any of the matters referred to arbitration or where it determines any matter not referred to arbitration and such matter cannot be separat ed without affecting the determination of matters referred or b where the award is so indefinite as to be incapable of execution or c where an objection to the legality of the award is apparent upon the face of it
 Section 16 empowers the Court to remit the award to the Arbitrator for reconsideration only in three cases specified therein
Clause c of Section 161 provides that the award shall be remitted to the Arbitrator by the Court where an objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it
Of course the High Court has come to a finding that the Arbitrator was guilty of misconduct for his failure to give reasons as required
There is however nothing to show that the Arbitrator misconducted himself or the pro ceedings in any other manner nor there is anything to show that the awards have been improperly procured
There is no allegation far less any finding that the Arbitrator was biased or unfair or he has not heard both the parties or he has not fairly considered the submissions of the parties in making the awards in question
In our opinion it is evident from the four awards made by the Arbitrator that the Arbi trator has considered all the specific issues raised by the parties in the arbitration proceedings and came to his finding after giving cogent reasons
The above awards cannot under any circumstances be considered to be made by the Arbitrator without recording any reasons for the same
Therefore in such circumstances it is not proper to hold that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or in the proceedings in the matter of giving the awards
In these circumstances we are unable to hold that the four awards made by the Arbitrator are bad for not recording reasons
We therefore uphold the said awards and we do not think it necessary to decide the question as regards the scope of Section 30 or Section 16of 911 the 
The decision of the High Court remit ting the awards back to the Arbitrator for giving reasons is set aside and the awards made by the Arbitrator are upheld
Let these awards be made rule of the Court
The appeals are therefore dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The appellant an adjudicating authority held the demand from the respondent towards excise duty on biaxially orien tal polypropylene films as set ant in the show cause notice dated 25101983 as barred by limitation and dropped further proceedings
A copy of the order despatched on 21121984 was received by the respondent on 21121984
The Central Board of Excise and Customs after considera tion of the order on 1112198S directed the appellant to apply under Section 3SE1 of the Central Excises  Salt Act 1944 to the Customs Excise  Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for correct determination of the points arising out of the order dated 21121984 and the appellant filed the application under section 35E4 of the Act
Before the Tribunal the respondent urged that the rele vant date of the Collector s adjudicating authority s order for the purposes of Section 35E3 should he taken as 28111984 and not 21121984 when it was received by the respondent and on that basis the order of the Board under Section 35E1 of the Act should he held as beyond the period of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and therefore the application before the Tribunal was incompetent
863 The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the application was not maintainable
In this appeal tided under Section 35L of the Act the appellant contended that mere writing an order in file kept in the office was no order in the eye of law in the sense of affecting the rights of the parties for whom the order was meant and that though the order of the adjudicat ing authority was made on 28111984 a copy of the same was sent to the respondent only on 21121984 and received by him on the very day and that therefore the limitation would start only at the earliest from 21121984 that enabling the giving of the direction under Section 35E1 and the application under Section 35E4 in pursuance of that direc tion should he treated as if a right of appeal given to the department that the departmental authorities and the pri vate parties were to he treated equally as aggrieved persons for the purposes of calculating the time for making the direction under Section 35E3 of the Act
On the question what is the relevant date for the purpose of calculation of the period of one year provided under Section 35E3 of the Central Excises  Salt Act 1944 dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
If an authority is authorised to exercise a power or do an act affecting the rights of parties he shall exercise that power within the period or limitation pre scribed therefore
The order or decision of such authority comes into force or becomes operative or becomes an effec tive order or decision on and from the date when it is signed by him
The date of such order or decision is the date on which the order or decision was passed or made that is to say when he ceases to have any authority to tear it off and draft a different order and whenhe ceases to have any locuspaetentiae
Normally that happens when the order or decision is made public or notified in some form or when it can he said to have left his hand
The date of communication of the order to the party whose rights are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time
869D F 2
If the intention or design of the statutory provi sion was to protect the interest of the person adversely affected by providing a remedy against the order or deri sion any period of limitation prescribed with reference to invoking such remedy shall he read as commencing from the date of communication of the order
But if it is a limita tion for a competent authority to make an order the date of exer 864 cise of that power and in the case of exercise of suo moto power over the subordinate authorities  orders the date on which such power was exercised by making an order are the relevant date for determining the limitation
871H 872B 3
Section 35E comes under the latter category of an authority exercising its own powers under the Act
It is not correct to equate the Board to one of the two parties to a quasi judicial proceeding before the Collector and the Board s right under Section 35E to the exercise of the right of appeal by an aggrieved assessee from an order passed to its prejudice
872B C 4
The power under Section 35E is a power of superin tendence conferred on a superior authority to ensure that the subordinate officers exercise their powers under the Act correctly and properly
Where a time is limited for the purposes by the statute such power should he exercised within the specified period from the date of the order sought to he reconsidered
To hold to the contrary would he inequitable and will also introduce uncertainties into the administration of the Act
872C E 5
The direction to file an appeal under Sections 35E12 of the Act by the Board and the Collector as the case may he is to the very adjudicating authority who would otherwise he bound by his own order and not expected to he aggrieved by the same
When an appeal is filed on such direction the appellant will be the adjudicating authority himself and not the authority who gave the direction
867D E 6
The period of one year fixed under sub section 3 of Section 35E of the Act should he given its literal meaning and so construed the impugned direction of the Board was beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein and therefore invalid and ineffective
872G Annamalai Chetti vs Col
JG Cloete Mad 189 Seshamma vs Sankara Mad 1 The Secre tary of State for India in Council vs Gopisetti Narayanaswa mi Naidu Guru ILR 34 Madras 151 Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer  Anr 1962 1 SCR 676 Asstt
Transport Commissioner Administration UP  Ors
vs Sri Nand Singh  Muthia Chettiar vs CIT ILR and Viswanathan Chettiar vs Commissioner of Income Tax Madras  referred to 865