Arbitration award filing, interest, and freight refund upheld where the consent court retained control over proceedings.

The Supreme Court treated the controlling court in a consent arbitration as the competent forum for filing the award and held that an arbitrator could file the award suo motu where the Arbitration Act, 1940 imposed no prohibition. It also upheld interest from 7 June 1958 at 9% per annum, noting that the disputes, including interest, were referred to arbitration, the balance price had become payable on that date, and the contract did not exclude interest. The direction to refund excess railway freight was sustained because the objection that it had already been included in the balance price was not established. The objections to the award failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an arbitrator could validly file the award suo motu in the Supreme Court and whether that Court was a competent court for filing the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940; (ii) whether interest could be awarded from a date prior to the award or reference in the circumstances of the reference; and (iii) whether the direction to refund excess railway freight was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether an arbitrator could validly file the award suo motu in the Supreme Court and whether that Court was a competent court for filing the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not contain any prohibition against an arbitrator filing the award on his own motion. The expression "court" in the definition provision had to be read in context, and in the present arbitration the Supreme Court had itself appointed the arbitrator by consent, had retained control over the proceedings, and had issued further directions regarding the records and extension of time. In that setting, the Supreme Court remained the proper forum for the filing of the award.

Conclusion: The award was validly filed, and the objection to the forum for filing failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be awarded from a date prior to the award or reference in the circumstances of the reference.

Analysis: Where all disputes, including the claim for interest, are referred to arbitration, the arbitrator may award pendente lite interest, and where the claim is for price of goods sold, the right to interest is preserved by the Sale of Goods Act in the absence of a contract to the contrary. The arbitrator found that the balance price became payable on 7 June 1958, and the contractual materials did not exclude interest. The rate awarded was not shown to be excessive in view of the parties' own claims for interest at a higher rate.

Conclusion: The award of interest from 7 June 1958 at 9% per annum was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the direction to refund excess railway freight was sustainable.

Analysis: The challenge was that the refund amount had allegedly already been included in the balance price, but that contention was not established. No material was shown to demonstrate that the refund had been absorbed in the amount awarded as balance price.

Conclusion: The direction to refund the excess railway freight was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The objections to the award were rejected, the award was made a decree, and the claimant was granted the monetary reliefs awarded by the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the entire dispute is referred to arbitration and the governing contract does not exclude interest, an arbitrator may award interest from the date the amount became payable, and contextual interpretation may require the court that controls the arbitration proceedings to be treated as the competent court for filing the award.

---