Appeal No 12 of 1958
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 61953 of the Madras High Court in Appeal against order No 54 of 1949
section T Desai and K R Choudhri for the appellant
K N Rajagopala Sastri and T V B Tatachari for respondents Nos
I to 5
April 5
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR J
In this appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court of Madras the appellant challenges the validity of an award made by an arbitrator appointed by the Court in a suit for partition and recovery of possession filed by the appellant of his half share in certain properties upon three grounds
The first ground is that the reference to arbitration was itself invalid because the Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 23 sub section
1 of the 10 of 1940 in the matter of specifying the time within which the award was to be made
The second ground is that the award was filed in Court by the arbitrator after the expiry of the time subsequently granted by the court for filing the award
The third ground is that the arbitrator erred in allotting to the appellant less than half the share in the properties in suit
In our opinion there is no substance in any of these grounds
It is undoubtedly true that sub section
1 of a 23 requires that an order thereunder referring a dispute to an arbitrator must specify the time within which the award is to be made
What is imperative is the fixation of the time for making the award
But it does not follow that where the Court omits to specify the time in the order of reference but does so elsewhere in the proceedings the reference is bad
In Raja Har Narain Singh vs Chaadhrain Bhagawant Kuar and another 1 which was a case under the Code of Civil 1 1981 LR 18 IA 55
786 Procedure 1882 the Privy Council had to consider the provisions of section 508 which correspond to those of section 23l of the 
While pointing out that the provisions of section 508 are mandatory and imperative they held that though the failure of the Court to specify the time for making the award in the order of reference was not a strict compliance of the terms of the section still the fact that the Court fixed a date for hearing of the case might be sufficient
 There also as here subsequent to the mak ing of the reference the Court repeatedly made orders enlarging the time and in those orders Axed the time within which the award was to be made
Thus the emphasis laid by the Privy Council was on the fixation of time in some manner and not on the necessity of expressly specifying the time in the order of reference itself
Here the B Form Diary of the court shows that the dispute was referred to arbitration on January 22 1948
The entry in the diary of that date reads thus Subject matter of suit is referred to Arbitration on joint petition
Call on 24 2 1948
The words call on must be interpreted to mean that the arbitrator was required to file his award by the date for which the suit stood adjourned that is February 24 1948
In our opinion this entry should be read along with the order of reference
Reading them together it would follow that time was in fact fixed for filing the award by February 24 1948
The mere omission to mention this date in the order of reference itself did not vitiate the reference
As regards the failure of the arbitrator to file the award within the time fixed the argument of learned counsel is that though on March 25 1948 time was fixed for filing the award by June 23 1948 the award was not actually filed till July 6 1948
A reference to the B Form Diary discloses that on February 24 1948 the case was adjourned to March 25 1948
The Diary contains the remark call on and this remark precedes the mention of the adjourned date
The High Court has interpreted this to mean that the time was extended by the Court on February 24 1948 to March 25 1948
The entry dated March 25 1948 contains the following 787 Further time wanted
File Award 23 6 1948
Three further entries are relevant and they are as follows 23 6 1948 Call on  28 6 1948 28 6 1948 Call on 6 7 1948 6 7 1948 Award filed
Objections 13 7 1948
It is obvious from these entries that time was extended by the Court to file the award on three occasions
The award was actually ready on June 28 1948 and was filed in Court on July 6 1948
Learned counsel for the appellant faintly urged that on July 2 1948 that is before the award was actually filed he had made an application to the Court for superseding the arbitration and that therefore the award could not be filed thereafter
A mere application of the kind could not affect the reference
Apart from that the award had actually been made before that date and there fore the attempt to seek the supersession of the arbitration was in any case belated
As regards the last point the High Court has come to the conclusion that though the area of the land allotted to the appellant is less than half the total area of the land in suit there is nothing to indicate that the value of that land is less than half that of the entire land in suit
We agree that upon the material on record it would not be possible to say that the appellant has in fact received less than his due share of property
Apart from that however we may point out that under section 30 of the Act an award can be set aside only on the following three grounds a that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings b that an award has been made after the Issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid in under section 35 c that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid
Plainly this objection would not fall either under el
a or under cl
b nor under the first part of cl
788 The question is whether it could possibly fall within the second part of cl
c that is whether the award is I otherwise invalid
In order to bring the objection within this clause learned counsel contended that the award was bad on its face
It is difficult for us to appreciate bow the award could be said to be bad on its face
When a dispute is referred to arbitration the arbitrator has to decide it to the best of his judgment of course acting honestly
Here in his judgment the arbitrator has allotted to the appellant certain lands the total area of which is less than half that of the entire I and in suit
The appellant s contention is that he is entitled to half the entire land
This contention was before the arbitrator
In spite of that he has made the award in the terms in which he has made it
There appears to be no suggestion that the arbitrator acted dishonestly
How can it then be said that this award is on its face bad Agreeing with the High Court we dismiss this appeal with costs to the contesting respondent
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The questions for determination in the appeal were whether the award in question was invalid 1 by reason of the court failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 23l Of the  that the time within which the award is to be made must be specified in the order and 2 whether the arbitrator was in error in allotting to the appellant less than half share in the properties
Held that under section 23l Of the  it is imperative that the time for making the award must be fixed but that does not mean that where the court omits to specify the time in the order of reference and does so elsewhere in the proceedings the reference is invalid
Consequently in a case where the order sheet of the court read with the order of reference made it clear that the arbitrator was to file his award by the date to which the suit was adjourned it could not be said that the section had not been complied with
Raja Har Narain Singh vs Chaudbrain Bhagwant Kuar 1891 LR 18 IA 55 referred to
Held further that the award could not be said to be bad on the face of it and otherwise invalid merely because the appellant had received less than his due share
The court cannot interfere with the findings of an arbitrator based on the best of his judgment unless it is shown that he has acted dishonestly