Case: B. Subbarama Naidu Vs. B. Siddamma Naidu &amp; Others

The first ground is that the reference to arbitration was itself invalid because the Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of S. 23, sub-s. (1), of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (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 panted 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.

Reasoning:
In our opinion there is no substance in any of thesemere application of the kind could not affect the reference. Apart from that, the award had actually been made before that date and, therefore, the attempt to seek the supersession of the arbitration was, in any case,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 ofis difficult for us to appreciate how 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 land in suit. The appellants contention is that he is entitled to 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.