{"id":58788,"date":"1985-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985"},"modified":"2016-07-02T02:50:15","modified_gmt":"2016-07-01T21:20:15","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR  920, \t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 649<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Misra, R.B. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRI HARDYAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/04\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  920\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 649\n 1985 SCC  (2) 629\t  1985 SCALE  (1)675\n\n\nACT:\n     Arbitration Act  1940 sections 3 and 28 (1) and (2) and\nclause 3  of the First Schedule-Written agreement-Containing\narbitration  clause-No\t period\t fixed\t for  giving  award-\nStatutory period-Applicability\tof-Parties participating  in\nthe proceedings\t after\tthe  expiry  of\t prescribed  period-\nwhether amounts\t to extension  of  time\t for  making  award-\nExtension  of\ttime  for   making   award-Jurisdiction\t  of\narbitrator-Court's exercise  of discretion  in extension  of\ntime-Doctrine of waiver and estoppel whether applicable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     By a  written agreement  ,\t  the respondent  agreed  to\nconstruct bridges  and culverts\t for State  Government.\t The\nagreement contained  an arbitration clause ,  the Arbitrator\nbeing the  Superannuation intending  Engineer. However ,  no\nperiod was  fixed for  giving the   And\t . therefore  ,\t the\nstatutory  period  of  four  months  for  giving  the  award\nprescribed  in\tclause\t3  of  the  First  Schedule  to\t the\nArbitration Act was applicable.\n     A dispute\tarose between  the parties.  The  respondent\nsent a notice to the Arbitrator requesting him to accept his\nclaim  and   give  his\t award.\t  The\trespondent   claimed\ncompensation on\t two counts  ,\t namely ,  (I) that the Sub-\nDivisional Officer  got certain bridges demolished which had\nbeen construed strictly in terms of the agreement ,  and (2)\nthat the respondent had also been directed to stop the work.\n     The Arbitrator  gave his  award against  the respondent\nafter the  expiry of the prescribed period ,  the respondent\nhaving participated  period ,  in the proceedings before the\nArbitrator even\t after the  expiry of  the statutory period.\nThe respondent\tchallenged the\taward but  the\ttrial  Court\noverruled the objection and upheld the award.\n     On appeal\tto the High Court ,  a Single Judge referred\ntwo points  for decision  by a Division Bench ,\t (l) Whether\nthe award  given after\tthe expiry  of the prescribed period\nwithout extension of time by the Court was invalid ? and (2)\nWhether the  participation in  the  arbitration\t proceedings\neven after the\n650\nexpiry of  the period  of  limitation  prescribed  would  by\nnecessary implication  amount to extending the time under s.\n28 of the Arbitration Act by the Court ?\n     The  Division   Bench  allowed  the  objection  of\t the\nrespondent regarding  delay in\tgiving the  award ,  holding\nthat a\tparty to  an arbitration  agreement is\tnot estopped\nfrom challenging  the 'award  of the  ground of delay merely\nbecause it  had participated  in the arbitration proceedings\neven after  the expiry\tof the prescribed period without any\ndemur ,\t  that\tmere dismissal\tof the\tobjection  regarding\ndelay in  the award  does not amount an extension of time by\nthe Court under s. 28 (l) of the Arbitration Act ,  and that\ntime can  be extended  by the court by the exercise of sound\njudicial discretion.  The appeal  was allowed  and the\tcase\nremanded to  the trial\tCourt for  deciding whether it was a\nfit case  for condoning the delay in giving the award by the\nArbitrator.\n     Allowing the Appeal of the State in part,\n^\n\t HELD: l. The provisions of ss. 3 and 28 (1) and (2)\nand clause  3 of  First Schedule to the Act indicate that it\nis open\t to the\t parties to  an arbitration agreement to fix\nthe time  within   which the Arbitrator must give his award,\nbut it\thas to\tbe so stated in the agreement itself. If per\nchance no  time has  been specified  by the  parties in\t the\narbitration agreement  ,  then by virtue of operation of s.3\nwith read  clause 3  of the First Schedule the award must be\ngiven within  four months  of the arbitrator entering on the\nreference or  after having been called upon to act by notice\nin writing  from any  party to\tthe arbitration agreement or\nwithin such extended time as the Court may allow. [654A-B]\n     2. Sub-section  (t) of  s.28 is  very wide\t and confers\nfull discretion\t on the\t Court to enlarge time for the award\nat any\ttime ,\t which\tshould ,   however  ,\tbe exercised\njudiciously. Sub-section  (2) of s. 28 makes it evident that\nthe Court  alone has  the power\t to extend  time. It further\nprovides that  a clause\t in the arbitration agreement giving\nthe Arbitrator power to enlarge time shall be void and of no\neffect\texcept\t when  all   the  parties  consent  to\tsuch\nenlargement. It\t is not\t open to  Arbitrators at  their\t own\npleasure without  the consent of parties to the agreement to\nenlarge the for making the award.[655 A-B]\n     H.K Wattal v V.N. Pandya [1974] 1 SCR 259 ,  followed.\n\t 3 Once the law precedes parties from extending time\nafter the  matter has  been referred to the Arbitrator ,  it\nwill be\t contradiction to  hold that  the same result can be\nbrought about by the conduct of the parties. There can be no\nestoppel against  a statute. The time to be fixed for making\nthe award was initially one of agreement between the parties\nbut it\tdoes not  follow ,   that  in the  face of  a  clear\nprohibition by law that the time fixed under clause 3 of the\nsaid Schedule  can only be extended by the Court and not b y\nthe parties  at any  stage. It\tstill remains  a  matter  of\nagreement and  the rule\t of estoppel  operates. The  Act has\ninjuncted the  Arbitrator to  give  an\taward  with  in\t the\nprescribed\n651\nperiod of  four months\tunless the  same is  extended by the\nCourt. The  Arbitrator has  no jurisdiction to make an award\nafter the  fixed time.\tIf the award made beyond the time is\ninvalid the  parties are  not estopped by their conduct from\nchallenging the\t award on the ground that it was made beyond\ntime merely  because of\t their having  participated  in\t the\nproceedings before  the Arbitrator  after the  expiry of the\nprescribed period. [656H; 657 A-C]\n     Shambbu Nath v Surja Devi ,  AIR 1961 All. 180; Shivlal\nv. Union  of India  AIR 1975  M.P.40; and  Ganesh Chandra v.\nArtatrana AIR 1965 Orissa 17 over ruled.\n     4. The  policy of\tlaw seems to be that the arbitration\nproceedings should  not be unduly prolonged. The Arbitrator,\ntherefore ,   has  to give the award within time  prescribed\nor such\t extended time\tas the ,  Court concerned may in its\ndiscretion extend  and the  Court alone\t has been  given the\npower to extend time for giving the award. The Court has got\nthe power  to extended\ttime even  after the  award has been\ngiven or  after the  expiry of the period prescribed for the\naward. But  the Court  has to  exercise its  discretion in a\njudicial manner.  In the  instant case ,  the High Court was\njustified in  taking the view that it did. This power can be\nexercised even\tby the\tappellants court.  In  view  of\t the\npolicy of  law and in view of the fact that the parties have\nbeen taking  willing part  in  the  proceedings\t before\t the\nArbitrator without  a demur  ,\t this will be a fit case for\nthe extension  of time.\t the time  for giving  the award  is\nextended and  the award will be deemed to have been given in\ntime The  case is  however ,  remanded to the High Court for\ndecision on the other issued involved. [657 E-G; 658]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1980 of<br \/>\n1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  Judgment and order dated 16.11.69 of the High<br \/>\nCourt of Punjab &amp; Haryana in F.A.O. No. 120\/62.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mrs. Urmila Kapur and S.K. Bagga for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     MISRA ,  J. Hardyal ,  the respondent ,  entered into a<br \/>\ncontract with the State of Punjab ,  Public Works Department<br \/>\n(Buildings and Roads Branch) for the construction of certain<br \/>\nbridges and  culverts on  the Mukerian-Naushehra  Road.\t The<br \/>\nagreement between  the parties\twas evidenced  by a writing.<br \/>\nThe written  agreement contained an arbitration clause which<br \/>\nprovided that dispute ,\t if any ,  between the parties would<br \/>\nbe referred  to the  Superintending Engineer,  Public  Works<br \/>\nDepartment (Buildings  and Roads) ,  Jullundur Circle. It 11<br \/>\nappears that  no  period  was  fixed  in  the  agreement  of<br \/>\nreference for  giving the award and therefore Period of four<br \/>\nmonths as prescribed<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">652<\/span><br \/>\nin  clause   3\tof   the  First\t Schedule  attached  to\t the<br \/>\nArbitration Act would be the statutory period for giving the<br \/>\naward.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Some  dispute   did  arise\t between  the  parties.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent ,   therefore  ,   sent a  notice on\t January  7,<br \/>\n1960 to the Superintending Engineer requesting him to accept<br \/>\nhis claim  to the  tune of  Rs. 7,568  and  give  his  award<br \/>\naccordingly.  The   respondent\tclaimed\t  this\t amount\t  of<br \/>\ncompensation broadly  on  two  counts:\t(1)  that  the\tsub-<br \/>\nDivisional Officer  had got certain bridges demolished which<br \/>\naccording to the respondent had been constructed strictly in<br \/>\nterms of   the\tagreement ,  and (2) that the respondent had<br \/>\nalso been directed to stop the work.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The arbitrator gave his award against the respondent on<br \/>\nApril 28  ,   1961 ,  but after the expiry of the prescribed<br \/>\nperiod. It is ,\t how ever admitted by the respondent that he<br \/>\nparticipated in\t the proceedings  before the arbitrator even<br \/>\nafter the  expiry of  the statutory  period. The  respondent<br \/>\nchallenged the\taward by  filing an objection under s. 30 of<br \/>\nthe Arbitration\t Act on\t a number  of grounds.\tOn the pleas<br \/>\ntaken by  the respondent  the Senior  Sub-Judge\t framed\t the<br \/>\nfollowing four\tissues:\t (I)  whether  the  objections\twere<br \/>\npremature ,   (2)  whether the\tarbitrator had\tmisconducted<br \/>\nhimself or  the proceedings  ,\t (3) whether  the award\t was<br \/>\nagainst natural\t justice ,   and  (4) whether  the award was<br \/>\nmade after inordinate delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  Judge overruled  all\tthe  objections\t and<br \/>\nupheld the  award. Issue  No. l\t Was not pressed before him.<br \/>\nThe contention of the respondent that reasonable opportunity<br \/>\nhad not\t been afforded\tto him\tto adduce evidence ,  by the<br \/>\narbitrator ,   was  also repelled  by the  learned Judge. He<br \/>\nobserved<br \/>\n\t  &#8220;One of the grounds taken up for setting aside the<br \/>\n     award  as\tstated\tin  the\t application  was  that\t the<br \/>\n     petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to<br \/>\n     adduce evidence.  But the\trecord\tof  the\t proceedings<br \/>\n     dated 24th\t of April ,  1961 shows that the parties did<br \/>\n     not want  to say  any thing  further and the hearing of<br \/>\n     the  case\t was  ,\t    therefore,\t closed\t under\tsuch<br \/>\n     circumstances.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The plea  regarding  misconduct  on  the  part  of\t the<br \/>\narbitrator was\talso overruled\tand dealing  with this point<br \/>\nthe learned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">653<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    &#8220;Nothing has been POINTED out to me in the court<br \/>\nduring the  course of the arguments as to how the arbitrator<br \/>\nhas misconducted himself and the proceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The plea  regarding  delay\t in  giving  the  award\t was<br \/>\nrejected  on   the  ground  that  the  respondent  had\tbeen<br \/>\nparticipating in  the proceedings before the arbitrator even<br \/>\nafter the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent  took the  matter in  appeal to the High<br \/>\nCourt. When the matter came up before a learned Single Judge<br \/>\nhe referred  the following  two points\tfor  decision  by  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench\ton account of the importance of the question<br \/>\ninvolved in  the case  and also\t on account  of conflict  of<br \/>\njudicial opinion on the point:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     1.\t  Whether the  award given  after the  expiry of the<br \/>\n     prescribed period\twithout extension  of  time  by\t the<br \/>\n     court was invalid ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     2.\t  Whether the  rejection of  the objection regarding<br \/>\n     delay in  giving the  award  on  the  ground  that\t the<br \/>\n     objector\thad    participated   in   the\t arbitration<br \/>\n     proceedings even  after the  expiry of  the  period  of<br \/>\n     limitation prescribed  would by  necessary\t implication<br \/>\n     amount to\textending  the\ttime  under  s.\t 28  of\t the<br \/>\n     Arbitration Act by the Court ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The  Division   Bench  allowed  the  objection  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent regarding  delay in giving the award holding that<br \/>\na party\t to an\tarbitration agreement  is not  estopped from<br \/>\nchallenging the\t award on the ground of delay merely because<br \/>\nit has\tparticipated in\t the  arbitration  proceedings\teven<br \/>\nafter the expiry of the prescribed period without any demur.<br \/>\nOn the\tsecond point the High Court held that mere dismissal<br \/>\nof the\tobjection regarding  delay in  the  award  does\t not<br \/>\namount to  extension of\t time by the court under s. 28(1) of<br \/>\nthe Arbitration\t Act and  indeed time can be extended by the<br \/>\nCourt  by   the\t exercise   of\tsound  judicial\t discretion.<br \/>\nAccordingly the\t appeal was  allowed ,\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nSenior Sub-Judge was set aside and the case was sent back to<br \/>\nthe trial  court for  deciding afresh  whether it  was a fit<br \/>\ncase for  condoning the\t delay in  giving the  award by\t the<br \/>\narbitrator after  affording opportunity\t to the\t parties  to<br \/>\nadduce evidence,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">654<\/span><br \/>\n     The State\thas now\t come up  in appeal on a certificate<br \/>\ngranted by  the High  Court  under  Art.  133(1)(c)  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution ,\tas it then stood.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The same points have been reiterated before this Court.<br \/>\nBefore\tdealing\t  with\tthe   points  involved\tit  will  be<br \/>\nconvenient to  refer  to  the  relevant\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nArbitration Act. Section 3 reads;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;3. An arbitration agreement ,  unless a different<br \/>\n     intention is  expressed therein  ,\t  shall be deemed to<br \/>\n     include the provisions set out in the First Schedule in<br \/>\n     so far as they are applicable to the reference.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t Section 28 reads:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  &#8220;28. (1)  The court  may ,   if  it thinks  fit  ,<br \/>\n     whether the  time for  making the\taward has expired or<br \/>\n     not and  whether the  award has  been  made  or  not  ,<br \/>\n     enlarge from  time to  time the  time  for\t making\t the<br \/>\n     award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  (2) Any  provision  in  an  arbitration  agreement<br \/>\n     whereby the  arbitrators or  umpire may  ,\t except with<br \/>\n     the consent  of all  the parties  to  the\tagreement  ,<br \/>\n     enlarge the  time for making the award ,  shall be void<br \/>\n     and of no effect.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause 3 of First schedule provides:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  &#8220;3. The  arbitrators shall make their award within<br \/>\n     four months  after entering  on the  reference or after<br \/>\n     having been  called upon  to act  by notice  in writing<br \/>\n     from any  party to\t the arbitration agreement or within<br \/>\n     such extended time as the court may allow.&#8221;<br \/>\n     A perusal of these provisions indicates that it is open<br \/>\nto the\tparties to  an arbitration agreement to fix the time<br \/>\nwithin which the arbitrator must give award ,  but it has to<br \/>\nbe so  stated in the agreement itself. If per chance no time<br \/>\nhas  been  specified  by  the  parties\tin  the\t arbitration<br \/>\nagreement. then by virtue of operation of s. 3 read with cl.<br \/>\n3 of  the First Schedule the award must be given within four<br \/>\nmonths of  the arbitrator entering on the reference or after<br \/>\nhaving been called upon to act by notice in writing from any<br \/>\nparty to  the arbitration  agreement or within such extended<br \/>\ntime as the court may allow.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">655<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Sub-section (I)  of s. 28 is very wide and confers full<br \/>\ndiscretion on the court to enlarge time for making the award<br \/>\nat any time. The discretion under sub-s. (I) of s. 28 should<br \/>\n,   however ,\tbe exercised judiciously. Sub-section (2) of<br \/>\ns. 28  also makes  it evident  that the\t court alone has the<br \/>\npower to  extend time.\tIt further provides that a clause in<br \/>\nthe arbitration\t agreement giving  the arbitrator  power  to<br \/>\nenlarge time  shall be void and of no effect except when all<br \/>\nthe parties  consent to\t such enlargement. It is not open to<br \/>\narbitrators at\ttheir own  pleasure without  consent of\t the<br \/>\nparties to  the agreement  to enlarge  time for\t making\t the<br \/>\naward.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In H.K.  Wattal v. V.N. Pandya(1) dealing with s. 28(1)<br \/>\nof the Arbitration Act this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;There is no doubt that the arbitrator is expected<br \/>\n     to make his award within four months of his entering on<br \/>\n     the reference  or on  his being  called upon  to act or<br \/>\n     within such  extended time\t as  the  court\t may  allow.<br \/>\n     Reading clause  3 of the Schedule along with section 28<br \/>\n     one finds\tthat the power to enlarge the time is vested<br \/>\n     in the  court and\tnot in\tthe arbitrator. Clause 3 and<br \/>\n     section 28(1)  exclude  by\t necessary  implication\t the<br \/>\n     power of  the arbitrator  to enlarge  the time. This is<br \/>\n     emphasised by  section 28(2)  which provides  that even<br \/>\n     when such\ta provision  giving the\t arbitrator power to<br \/>\n     enlarge the  time is contained in the agreement ,\tthat<br \/>\n     pro- vision  shall be  void and  of no  effect ,\t The<br \/>\n     headnote of  section 28  brings out  the force  of this<br \/>\n     position in  law by  providing that the power is of the<br \/>\n     court only to enlarge time for making the award.<br \/>\n\t  Sub-section  (2)  of\tsection\t 28  ,\t  however  ,<br \/>\n     indicates one  exception to  the above  rule  that\t the<br \/>\n     arbitrator cannot\tenlarge the time ,  and that is when<br \/>\n     the parties  agree to such an enlargement. The occasion<br \/>\n     for the  arbitrator to  enlarge the  time\toccurs\tonly<br \/>\n     after he is called upon to proceed with the arbitration<br \/>\n     or he enters upon the reference. Hence it is clear that<br \/>\n     if the  parties agree  to the enlargement of time after<br \/>\n     the arbitrator  has entered  on the  reference ,\t the<br \/>\n     arbitrator has  the power\tto enlarge  it in accordance<br \/>\n     with the  mutual agreement\t or consent  of the parties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     That such\ta consent must be a post-reference consent ,<br \/>\n     is also clear from section 28(2) which renders null and<br \/>\n     void a provision<br \/>\nl. [1974] 1 SCR 259.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">656<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     in the  original agreement\t to that  effect. In a sense<br \/>\n     where a  provision is  made in  the original  agreement<br \/>\n     that the  arbitrator may  enlarge the  time ,   such  a<br \/>\n     provision always implies mutual consent for enlargement<br \/>\n     but such  mutual consent  initially  expressed  in\t the<br \/>\n     original agreement\t does not  save the  provision\tfrom<br \/>\n     being  void.  It  is  ,\ttherefore,  clear  that\t the<br \/>\n     arbitrator gets  the jurisdiction\tto enlarge  the time<br \/>\n     for making\t the  award  only  in  a  case\twhere  after<br \/>\n     entering  on   then  arbitration  the  parties  to\t the<br \/>\n     arbitration agreement  consent to\tsuch enlargement  of<br \/>\n     time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t   The next question that crops up for consideration<br \/>\nis what\t will be  the effect  if a  party to the arbitration<br \/>\ntook part  in the  proceedings before  the  arbitrator\teven<br \/>\nafter the  expiry of  four months  ,   that is ,  the period<br \/>\nprescribed for giving the award. Some High Courts have taken<br \/>\nthe view  that in  such a  situation the  condition of\tfour<br \/>\nmonths period  will be\tdeemed to  have been  waived. Such a<br \/>\nview has  been taken  by the Allahabad High Court in Shambhu<br \/>\nNath v.\t Surja Devi.(1)\t A learned Single Judge of that High<br \/>\nCourt observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;A  party   to  an   arbitration   agreement\t who<br \/>\n     voluntarily takes\tpart in\t the arbitration proceedings<br \/>\n     after the\texpiry of  four months\twill be\t deem , d to<br \/>\n     have waived the implied condition as to time.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     A similar\tview has  been taken  by the  Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nHigh Court  in Shivlal\tv.  Union  of  India(2).  In  Ganesh<br \/>\nChandra v.  Artatrana(3) a  single Judge  of the Orissa High<br \/>\nCourt observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;If the  parties ,\tafter  the  expiry  of\tfour<br \/>\n     months, submit  themselves to  the jurisdiction  of the<br \/>\n     arbitrators and  take part\t in the proceedings enabling<br \/>\n     them to  pass an  award ,\t it  cannot be said that the<br \/>\n     arbitrators  acted\t without  jurisdiction.\t In  such  a<br \/>\n     contingency ,   the  principle of\twaiver and  estoppel<br \/>\n     would have full application.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Once we  hold  that  the  law  precludes  parties\tfrom<br \/>\nextending time\tafter the  matter has  been referred  to the<br \/>\narbitrator ,  it will be<br \/>\n(1) AIR 1961 All. 180.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) AIR 1975 M.P. 40.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) AIR 1965 Orissa 17.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">657<\/span><\/p>\n<p>contradiction in  terms to  hold that the same result can be<br \/>\nbrought about  by the  conduct of  the parties. The age long<br \/>\nestablished principle  is that\tthere  can  be\tno  estoppel<br \/>\nagainst a  statute. It is true that the time to be fixed for<br \/>\nmaking the  award was initially one of agreement between the<br \/>\nparties but  it does  not follow that in the face of a clear<br \/>\nprohibition by\tlaw that  the time  fixed under cl. 3 of the<br \/>\nSchedule can  only be extended by the court and not by the 1<br \/>\nparties at  any stage  ,   it  still  remains  a  matter  of<br \/>\nagreement and  the rule\t of estoppel  operates. It  need  be<br \/>\nhardly emphasized  that the Act has injuncted the arbitrator<br \/>\nto give an award within the prescribed period of four months<br \/>\nunless the same is extended by the court. The arbitrator has<br \/>\nno jurisdiction\t to make  an award  after the fixed time. If<br \/>\nthe award  made beyond\tthe time is invalid the\t parties are<br \/>\nnot estopped  by their conduct from challenging the award on<br \/>\nthe ground  that it  was made  beyond time merely because of<br \/>\ntheir having  participated in  the  proceedings\t before\t the<br \/>\narbitrator after the expiry of the prescribed period.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The policy\t of law\t seems to  be that  the\t arbitration<br \/>\nproceedings should  not be  unduly prolonged. The arbitrator<br \/>\ntherefore has  to give\tthe award within the time prescribed<br \/>\nor such\t extended time\tas the\tcourt concerned\t may in\t its<br \/>\ndiscretion extend  and the  court along\t has been  given the<br \/>\npower to  extend time  for giving  the award. As II observed<br \/>\nearlier ,   the\t court has got the power to extend time even<br \/>\nafter the  award has  been-given or  after the expiry of the<br \/>\nperiod prescribed  for the  award.  But\t the  court  has  to<br \/>\nexercise its discretion in a judicial manner. The High Court<br \/>\nin our opinion was justified in taking the view that it did.<br \/>\nThis power  ,\thowever ,   can\t be exercised  even  by\t the<br \/>\nappellate court.  The present appeal has remained pending in<br \/>\nthis Court  since 1970.\t No useful purpose will be served in<br \/>\nremanding the  case to\tthe trial court for deciding whether<br \/>\nthe time  should be  enlarged in  the circumstances  of this<br \/>\ncase. In  view of  the policy  of law  that the\t arbitration<br \/>\nproceedings should  not be  unduly prolonged  and in view of<br \/>\nthe fact  that the  parties have been taking willing part in<br \/>\nthe proceedings\t before\t the  arbitrator  without  a  demur,<br \/>\nthis will  be a\t fit case  ,   in our  opinion ,    for\t the<br \/>\nextension of time. We accordingly extend the time for giving<br \/>\nthe award and the award will be deemed to have been given in<br \/>\ntime.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The other\tquestions involved  in the  case. however  ,<br \/>\nhave not  been dealt  with by  the High\t Court and  it\trest<br \/>\ncontent by making a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">658<\/span><br \/>\nbald observation  that there is no other point to be decided<br \/>\nin this\t appeal. The objector-respondent had raised a number<br \/>\nof pleas  fore challenge  the  award  giving  rise  to\tfour<br \/>\nissues. It was ,  therefore ,  obligatory for the High Court<br \/>\nto consider  those points  unless they\thad been given up by<br \/>\nthe objector-respondent.  There is  nothing on the record to<br \/>\nsuggest that  the respondent had given up those grounds. The<br \/>\ncase will  ,   therefore ,  have to be sent back to the High<br \/>\nCourt for deciding the other issues involved in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We accordingly  allow the\tappeal in part and set aside<br \/>\nthat part  of the order by which the High Court remanded the<br \/>\ncase to\t the trial court for deciding whether time should be<br \/>\nextended. The  case is\tsent back  to  the  High  Court\t for<br \/>\ndeciding other\tissues involved. In the circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase the parties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">659<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 920, 1985 SCR (3) 649 Author: R Misra Bench: Misra, R.B. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: SRI HARDYAL DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/04\/1985 BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) CITATION: 1985 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-01T21:20:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T21:20:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\"},\"wordCount\":2541,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T21:20:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-01T21:20:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985","datePublished":"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T21:20:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985"},"wordCount":2541,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985","name":"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T21:20:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sri-hardyal-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}