Tata Motors Finance Ltd v. Aftab Ali And ORS

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A

L
A

CRP
No.17

of
2015








Tata
Motors
Finance
Limited,



 









 







 

  
 
!

"

# $%&&
&&


$


 




 
 #


! 
'

()$*
+
(,*%
-()(
". 
/

0


1
/ 
%&&
&%



# 
 ( 2
!3)
+
)


4(








'("(
/ 


'(4(



1

 
/ '5 $2&&


















......



Petitioner

-
V
e
r
s
u
s
-
(1)
Aftab
Ali,


-




1


)6 
'(4(
7
'("(
8

 
8


$ 2,22
(2)
Faizun
Nessa,


-




1


)6 
'(4(
7
'("(
8

 
8


$ 2,22



......

Respondents
BEFORE
THE
HON'BLE
MR.JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA

9

(
:(
" 


9

(
"((
;

#


"

(


(
)(
;

#




:




















9

29.07.2015


<

7


/















9
Yes No
√

[2]
JUDGMENT
&
ORDER
(ORAL)



!

(
:(
" 










.


(
"((
;

#


 




#
(
)(
;

#










$ (


[2]
1 









"




('((
 





&(,(,&%


(
=

>
&

,&%
#

:

- 
?;

- :

(
1 (
=

>
&

,&%


 




"











 
(
"





 



9
36.
Enforcement.-Where
the
time
for
making
an
application
to
set
aside
the
arbitral
award
under
section
34
has
expired,
or
such
application
having
been
made,
it
has
been
refused,
the
award
shall
be
enforced
under
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
1908
(5
of
1908)
in
the
same
manner
as
if
it
were
a
decree
of
the
Court.
[3]
"#<



.

#


"





 




# #







'

 


&
=

& >





 


.

"


,=0>




#







 <








!





 





<




 
<






A



#< $




#

#< $






#
 










  













[3]










 (
  

 





%(,(,&,
 
#




'((




#

.


1 


B


(
 #




 




.













:

- 
?;

-
:


8

 (


[4]












#

1 



B




4

CC5
+



('((
# 


(=

>
&

,&%



.






< $ (
!



#<




"

%2


('((






 


# 








 








(




A





.
 
.

  



(

 




.


(
!

 




# 


 #



.


#




"


%


 

#






 (
)





&(,(,&%

#<



#




.


#




 

(
5
 
 

 





&(,(,&%

(

;





+(2,&&&&*$

  



("$&:$2,


(,





[4]



 



# 


.

<




#



  
#
 



(
1

(
 


 

 






 
 

.



)#




 

#




(
:






$<
 










 

. 
.
 
#





$< 
<









+(2&2( *$


.



D E



.( ((
, 



,&,

 


6


.




. 
#

;

  







 
#






 






. 

  

#

< $ 


@ 
 
 
$ (
1 $ 


#

#






+(&&&*$





(


[5]
)









("$&:$2,

















.


 (
1




#

 





&(,(,&%

#





9





[5]
Meaning
thereby,
even
if
the
JudgmentF debtors
did
not
appear
before
the
sole
arbitrator
and
failed
to
submit
statement
of
defence
there
was
no
impediment
upon
the
arbitrator
to
deliver
signed
copy
of
the
award
by
post
or
any
other
mode.
Further,
the
arbitrator
is
not
a
public
servant
as
defined
in
the
Indian
Penal
Code
who
is
competent
to
issue
certified
copy
of
a
document.
Therefore,
in
the
absence
of
signed
copy
of
the
arbitral
award
available
with
this
Court
it
cannot
be
said
that
there
is
an
arbitral
award
against
the
JudgmentFdebtors.
Consequently,
there
cannot
be
any
execution
of
any
award.
Hence,
the
objection
filed
under
Section
47
of
the
C.P.C.
is
allowed.


[6]

(
:(
" 










#

.

#






#









.

"


,=:>









 




# 










(


.












 

(
!

;




.




# (





.

. ;




#
A

<





 


"





 (
0 

 




#



;
  





 ;



"


,2



 (



#












#






   (
1
#






 
"


,


5('((
 




 


.


  




 (
1
 
 



"


,


5('((




  

  








 








[6]


 




 
 (
1 
#



.

.




 





 
#
.

A


"












 

#






 

(
(
" 









 @



Hindustan
Construction
Company
Ltd.
vs.
Union
of
India,




AIR
1967
SC
526

#





9

This
brings
us
to
the
meaning
of
the
word
"sign"
as
used
in
the
expression
"signed
copy".
In
Webster's
New
World
Dictionary,
the
word
"sign"
means
"to
write
one's
name
on,
as
in
acknowledging
authorship,
authorizing
action
etc."
To
write
one's
name
is
signature.
Section
3(56)
of
the
General
Clauses
Act,
No.
10
of
1987,
has
not
defined
the
word
"sign"
but
has
extended
its
meaning
with
reference
to
a
person
who
is
unable
to
write
his
name
to
include
"mark"
with
its
grammatical
variations
and
cognate
expressions.
This
provision
indicates
that
signing
means
writing
one's
name
on
some
document
or
paper.
In

 

        ,
a
question
arose
as
to
what
"signature"
meant
in
connection
with
s.
20
of
the
Limitation
Act,
No.
IX
of
1871.
It
was
observed
that
"where
a
party
to
a
contract
signs
his
name
in
any
part
of
it
in
such
a
way
as
to
acknowledge
that
he
is
the
party
contracting,
that
is
a
sufficient
signature".
It
was
further
observed
that
the
document
must
be
signed
in
such
a
say
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.
Or?

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
of
the
document
would
be
a
signed
copy
of
the
award.





[7]
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
only
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
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
a
signed
copy
of
the
award.

(
" 





 


#




 






.



. 






 
#


 .






 

.



 
.
 
#


#



(
)






;


A




(







) ;


"


#




(0&, 25

(
 #


.




+B(
(%%


"+
(

#




(
0&, 25
+B
(2,%

"+
(
.






[8]

(,
6

(
1


.



.




%(,(,&
.
 (
1 ) ;









,%(&(,&
.



 


  
# (







#<







"


%2


('((





#



.



 $
  (

[8]

(
"((
;

#








$<
 

#





 
#





 



#







.


"


=>








 

. 





9
5.
After
the
arbitral
award
is
made,
a
signed
copy
shall
be
delivered
to
each
party.



 


#




$





# 


"




 (
(
;

#








#


$




 
















"


%









 
(







 #





#


 (
!


#

"












 












#





[9]






.






.

;













"


%

@







 
#





#

 (


[9]
! 



#  

#
















.




:

- 
?;

- :


8




 


 


(



 






 





 
#





A


$<
 (
1 


. 



%(,(,&,





1 B* &*,&,
.
 


$ <
 (
1


 


 #






 

 


#
.


#

(
4
A

 


(
;

#








#




.



#

$ <








 
 




  


. (
1


 @



Hindustan
Construction
Company
Ltd.
vs.
Union
of
India






.



.





.

. 
F


#


 F
#





(
5
 






. 
=



[10]


#


 >
. 
#



















. 
.
"


%=,>

A











 







(

5

 @





#

 

.

. 
F









,2 
 
F
#
 
  


 

;


 



 



 


. (
[10]

1





(
1 







.








 
  

.

. 
G

 H

.



 

 


.

 

A


"


=>








 
(
"



G


 H
.




  

.





 #

(
1 








 



(
"
 



$












.

.
 




.


.


$< $ 
#







 


(



#











#




< $ 







[11]

.


#

< $ 
.







(
4







) ;


"









 
.


 


(
1

#<


#



"


%2


('((
 

#




 .
   
#



(

[11]

!







&(,(,&%





(
=

>
&

,&%



 (
"



 
#<







"


%2


('((

 
   (
1
:

- 
?;

- :


8

 









.

 


 (

/



#














.

(

"


.

B+


.

(








JUDGE