Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a contract between Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. and the Union of India for the construction of certain highway bridges. Differences during execution led to arbitration before two joint arbitrators, Sri B. K. Guha and Sri N. P. Gurjar. Upon their disagreement, the matter was referred to umpire Sri Dildar Hussain, who made an award on May 27, 1961. The appellant filed a petition on August 4, 1961 before the Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi under Sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a direction to the umpire to file the award or a signed copy and for judgment in terms of the award. In response, the umpire forwarded a document on September 13, 1961, describing it as a true copy of the award signed and certified by him. The document began with the words 'now I hereby reproduce a true copy of the said award which is as follows' and ended with 'certified as correct copy of the award dated the 27th May, 1961' followed by the umpire's signature. The respondent objected on November 1, 1961 that the filed document was merely a certified copy, not a signed copy, and therefore no further proceedings could be taken. The Subordinate Judge upheld the objection and dismissed the application under Section 17. The Punjab High Court dismissed the appellant's revision, holding the document was not a signed copy. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was the meaning of 'signed copy' in Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant contended that the document filed was a true and full reproduction of the original award and bore the umpire's signature, thus constituting a signed copy. The respondent argued that the document was only a certified copy, not a signed copy, and could not be acted upon. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of 'copy' with reference to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with secondary evidence, and concluded that a copy must be a true, accurate and full reproduction of the original. It then considered the meaning of 'sign' under Section 3(56) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and accepted the principle from Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree that a signature in any part of a document acknowledging the person as author is sufficient. The Court held that the document filed by the umpire was an accurate and full reproduction of the original award, bore the umpire's signature, and therefore was a signed copy. The words 'certified as correct copy' above the signature did not negate the character of a signed copy; rather, they reinforced the authentication. The Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and directed that further proceedings be taken by the Subordinate Judge in whose court the signed copy was filed. Costs of the Supreme Court were to abide the final result.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Filing of Award - Meaning of 'Signed Copy' under Section 14(2) - A document is a signed copy of an award if it is an accurate and full reproduction of the original and bears the signature of the arbitrator or umpire authenticating its correctness; the signature need not appear in any particular part, and the mere use of words such as 'certified as correct copy' above the signature does not deprive it of the character of a signed copy - Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 14(2) - In the present case, the umpire filed a document beginning with the words 'now I hereby reproduce a true copy of the said award which is as follows' and ending with the words 'certified as correct copy of the award dated the 27th May, 1961' followed by his signature. The court held that this document was a signed copy within the meaning of Section 14(2), and accordingly directed that further proceedings be taken by the Subordinate Judge (Paras Not mentioned). B) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of 'Copy' and 'Sign' - Copy and Sign under Indian Evidence Act and General Clauses Act - A 'copy' must be a true, accurate and full reproduction of the original; 'sign' means writing one's name on a document to acknowledge authorship or authenticate it - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 63; General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(56) - The court referred to the definition of secondary evidence in Section 63 of the Evidence Act and the extended meaning of 'sign' in Section 3(56) of the General Clauses Act, and relied on Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree to hold that a signature in any part of a document acknowledging the party as author is sufficient. Held that the umpire's signature on the filed copy authenticated the accuracy of the copy, making it a signed copy (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the document filed by the umpire in court was a 'signed copy' of the arbitration award within the meaning of Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, so as to enable further proceedings for passing a judgment in terms of the award.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below, and held that a signed copy of the award had been filed as required by Section 14(2). The Court directed that further proceedings be taken in the matter as required by law by the Subordinate Judge in whose court the signed copy of the award was filed. Costs of the Supreme Court were to abide the final result.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A signed copy of an arbitration award under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act
- 1940 is a document which is an accurate
- true and full reproduction of the original award and bears the signature of the arbitrator or umpire authenticating its accuracy or correctness
- the signature need not be in any particular part of the document
- the mere addition of words such as 'certified as correct copy' above the signature does not deprive the document of its character as a signed copy
- 'sign' means writing one's name on a document to acknowledge authorship or authenticate it
- 'copy' means a full reproduction of the original accurately made
- authentication under the signature of the arbitrator or umpire is sufficient compliance with Section 14(2)
