Case: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Vs. Union Of India

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant entered into a contract with the Union of India, respondent herein, for construction of certain highway bridges. In connection with the execution of the contract, some dispute arose between the parties and were referred to the joint arbitration of Sri B. K. Guha and Shri N. P. Gurjar. As there was difference of opinion between the two arbitrators, the matter was referred to an umpire, namely, Sri Dildar Hussain, retired Chief Engineer, Hyderabad. The umpire recorded evidence of the parties and gave his award on May 27, 1981. It appears that the award was made in duplicate and one copy was sent to each party. On August 4, 1961, the appellant made a petition before the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, No. 10 of 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was prayed that the umpire be directed by the Court to cause the award or a signed copy thereof together with any depositions and documents which might have been taken and proved before him to be filed in Court (S. 14). It was further prayed that a judgment be passed in terms of the award (S. 17).2. It appeals that on this petition the Court issued notice to the umpire to file the award and the arbitration proceedings. On September 13, 1961, the umpire wrote to the Court that he was forwarding along with, that letter the award in the case duly signed and certified by him. On November 1, 1961, an objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the award said to have been filed by the umpire had not been validly and legally filed under S. 14 and as such no proceedings in pursuance of the said filing could be taken in Court.3. This objection was considered as a preliminary objection by the Subordinate Judge. He came to the conclusion that the document filed in Court was neither the original award nor a signed copy thereof, and as such the Court could not take any action on that document. He therefore allowed the objection and dismissed the application under S. 17 for passing a judgment in terms of the award. The appellant then went in session to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision application holding that the document filed in court was admittedly not the original award and that it was clear from a perusal of the document itself that it was not a signed copy thereof. Certain alternative arguments were submitted to the High Court which were rejected and the revision application thus failed. Thereupon the appellant obtained Special leave, and that is how the matter has come up before us.

Reasoning:
is not in dispute that in the present case the original award has not beenHigh Court has accepted the contention of the respondent and all that it has said in that behalf is that it is clear from a perusal of the award that it is not a signed copy of the award but it is certified as correct copy of the award, dated the 27th May 1961. Unfortunately, the High Court has not considered what exactly the words "signed copy of the award" mean, and it is to this problem that we must nowa document is an accurate or true and full reproduction of the original it would be a copy. In the present case it is not in dispute that what was produced by Sri Dildar Hussain was a true or accurate and full reproduction of the original. It was, therefore, a copy of the original, and the only question that remains is whether it was signed. for if it was signed, it would be a signedwas further observed that the document must be signed in such a way as to make it appear that the person signing it is the author of it, and if that appears it does not matter what the form of the instrument is, or in what part of it the signature occurs.7. We accept these observations and are of the opinion that so long as there is the signature of the arbitrator or umpire on the copy of the award filed in Court and it shows that the person signing authenticated the accuracy or correctness of the copy the document would be a signed copy of the award. It would in such circumstances be immaterial whether the arbitrator or umpire put down the words "certified to be true copy" before signing the copy of the award. If anything, the addition of these words (namely, certified to be true copy) would be the clearest indication of the authentication of the copy as a true copy of the award, which is what S. 14 (2) requires, so long as the authentication is under the signature of the arbitrator or the umpire himself. In the present case, the document was sent by the umpire along with a letter forwarding it to the Court. In the letter it was stated that he was sending the award duly signed and certified by him. Then turning to the document we find that it begins with the words "now I hereby reproduce a true copy of the said award which is as follows" and this is signed by Sri Dildar Hussain, the umpire. Then follows the copy of the award. At the end we find the words "certified as correct copy of the award, dated the 27th May 1961." Underneath appears the signature of Sri Dildar Hussain, the umpire Clearly, therefore, the document filed is a true or accurate and full reproduction of the original award and it bears the signature of the umpire, Sri Dildar Hussain, and thus is signed copy of the award. The fact that the umpire wrote the words "certified as correct copy of the award, dated the 27th May 1961" above his signature does not in our opinion make any difference, and the document is still a signed copy of the award. If anything, these words show that the document filed is a true copy of the award and as it bears the signature of the umpire, it is a signed copy thereof. It may be added that the words "now I hereby reproduce a true copy of the said award which is as fol1ows" which appear at the beginning of the document and which are signed by the umpire Sri Dildar Hussain also in our opinion are sufficient to show that what was produced in Court was a signed copy of the award as required by S. 14 (2).8. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider the alternative argument raised on behalf of the appellant.