ORDER
S.S. Dhavan, J.
1. This is an application under Section 115, C. P. C. against an order of the first Civil Judge Kanpur passed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act and extending the time for the submission of the award by the Umpire. The applicant M/s. Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills Private Ltd. had a dispute with the second respondent M/s. Bharat Bandhu and the matter was referred to arbitration under an agreement providing for such an arbitration. The parties appointed an arbitrator each who selected an umpire. The latter however was not able to submit his award within a period of one month prescribed by the agreement and applied to the Court under Section 28 for extension of time. The applicant opposed the prayer and submitted that the agreement itself contained a specific procedure providing for arbitration by the Upper India Chamber of Commerce in the event of the Umpire failing to submit his award within time. The Court, however, over-ruled this objection and held that the powers of the Court under Section 28 were not controlled by the agreement. It extended the time for submitting the award till 31st October, 1958 and condoned the delay. Aggrieved by this order the applicant has come to this Court
for relief.
2. Mr. R. B. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power of the Court to extend the time for submitting the award under Section 28 is controlled by an express term in the arbitration agreement to the contrary. Learned counsel argued that an arbitrator derived his jurisdiction from the agreement and cannot exceed it. He relied upon Clause 17-B of the arbitration agreement which enjoins inter alia that if the arbitration by the umpire be not finally concluded within 30 days from the date of the notice first given, the dispute should be referred to arbitration under the rules of the tribunal to an arbitrator of the Chamber of Commerce. The learned counsel submitted that this provision by implication takes away the power of the Court to extend the time as otherwise it will be rendered nugatory.
3. The sole question in this revision is whether the power of the Court under Section 28 to extend time is controlled by the aforesaid clause in the agreement. In my opinion it does not. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the power is not limited by any qualifying words. It is possible to reconcile the clause in the agreement with the power of the Court under Section 28. The agreement says that if the umpire does not conclude the arbitration within thirty days the dispute shall be referred to the arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce. By virtue of Section 28 the words “thirty days” must mean thirty days or such extended period as the Court may, if it thinks fit, enlarge from time to time. If the Court refuses to enlarge the period or if no application is made to the Court for the enlargement of time, the provisions of Clause 17-B will come into force. But I cannot agree that any agreement fixing a time limit and providing for an alternative arbitration on the expiry of this time limit has the effect of taking away the nower of the Court to extend the time under Section 28.
4. I am supported in this view by the view taken in Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Edition. On page 42 of Vol. II the law is stated thus:
“Even where the time for making the award is limited whether under .the Act or otherwise the High Court or a judge thereof, may enlarge the time so limited, whether it has expired or not. But an arbitrator or an umpire must use all reasonable despatch in making his award or he may be removed by the High Court and will then loose his right of remuneration. Where the agreement itself provides how the time for making the award may be enlarged, then, subject to the power of the court referred to above, such provision should be strictly observed..”
5. The scheme of the English Arbitration Act of 1950 is similar to that of our Act. The words quoted above indicate that even where an arbitration agreement contains a provision how the time for making the award may be enlarged, such an agreement is “subject to the power of the Court” to enlarge the time.
6. I think that the view of the trial Court is
correct. This application is rejected with costs.