Singh Bahadur, 3 B. L. R., A. C. 82; C., 11, W. R. 433.

Much however depends npon the cause which led to the omission of the signature. Thus if a case has been regularly heard by all the arbitrators sitting together, and an award drawn up and signed by them, the mere omission of the arbitrators to sign the award at the same time and in each other's presence does not invalidate the award, Bunbusundari Dasi. v. Makhan Lal Dey, B. L. R., VIII., 128. A partial disagreement of two arbitrators does not nullify their award as a whole Sheikh Panaoollaa v. Sheikh Tumeezooddeen S. W. R. II. 32.

Where in a suit to recover a sum of money on an award, the five arbitrators came to a decision, and made, dated and signed a rough draft of thair award, and the defendant then withdrew from the submission, and a fair copy was then made, bearing the same date as that of the rough draft, but signed by only four of the arbitrators,-Held that the award was complete at the date of the rough draft, and that its validity was not affected by the subsequent occurrences. validity of an award cannot be impeached because the arbitrators afterwards do an act required neither by the law nor the terms of the submission. Kala Nagabushanam v. Kalasesháchalam, Mad. Rep., I., 178.

The

(d) Where by the terms of a reference to

arbitration all matters in difference are referred to the arbitrator, the Court will not modify, remit, or set aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator in his discretion has awarded damages to the plaintiff, and at the same time made him pay all the costs, when it is not shown that he exercised the discretion given him improperly. Mehendronath Cosev Nussee Mangee 1 Ind. Jur. N. &, 224. An appeal lies sec. 588.

(e) Arbitrators should give separate awards in a case referred to them by the Judge and on other matters referred to them by the parties instead of mixing them all up and giving a general award. Raghunandan Lal Sahoo v. Banwari Lall Sahoo S. W. R. III., Mis. 27. The party interested should bring the notice of the Court to the fact that one question at issue is omitted from the reference, and the award contains no decision thereon. If he fail to do so, the Court is not wrong in not passing order or coming to decision on that point Raj Naruni Roy v. Jageshar Mukarji. ib. XIV. 247.

An application that an award be remitted

to the arbitrators, in order that the proceedings, depositions, and exhibits in

the suit which have not been submitted with it to the Court should be so submitted, ought to be made within ten days after the award has been originally submitted; otherwise if the award be good on the face of it, tht Court will give judgment upon it. Baney Madhub Roy v. Hurry Mohun Roy, 2 Ind. Jur. II. Ň. S., 16.

(f)* An award defective and illegal on the face of it should be at once remitted to to the arbitrators. Lachmi Narayan v. Pyle N. W. P. I1, 150.

But it cannot be returned after judgment has been passed upon it. Popkar Parshad v. Panchan Roy ib. 235.

(g)* The objections which can be raised against an award are such as at the outset are fatal to it, e. g., objections which deny its genuineness or deny that the objector was a consenting party to the arbitration. Pratap Chunder Rudro v. Huro Monee Dassia, S, W. R., XXIV., 188. But a mere surmise of partiality founded on the fact that two arbitrators give an award in one sense, and the third in an opposite, is not enough to set aside an award. Bikant Nath Mukarjee v. Preonath Ghose, ib., XXII,

447.

Into objections raised under this section, a Court should make full enquiry before setting aside an award; hastily to assume that the mere circumstance of the arbitrator having some interest in the matter at issue is not enough. Senuk Kach v. Ore Dubey, N.-W. P., II., 241.

An award for more than is claimed is illegal. Sula Narain Singh v. Narain Singh, S. W. R., 1., 333.

An award is not illegal, because a party with

draws his submission to arbitration before the award is given. M. H. VII., 257. To arrive at a proper decision, a Court has every power to look into all proceedings, depositions and exhibits submitted by the arbitrators, and then, if satisfied that the award is of such a character as to raise a reasonable presumption of misconduct, it may set the award aside. Paresh Nath Dey v. Nobin Chander Dat, S. W. R., XII., 93.

(h)* The neglect of some of the arbitrators to attend meetings of the arbitrators is misconduct justifying the setting aside of the award by the Court which appointed the arbitrators, but not by a Court of Appeal. Sreenath Ghose v. Rajchander Paul and others, ib. VIII., 171. Further, when an arbitrator imports into his proceedings a previous inquiry alleged to have been held by him, and relies upon admissions made therein, the award is bad. Kanhya Chand Gosami v. Ram Chander Gosami, ib., XXIV., 81.

Misconduct, however, must not be construed * See page 304.

too strictly, especially legal misconduct, for an arbitrator is not bound by technical rules of Court. Reedoy Kisto Muzoomdar, v. Puddo Lochan Muzoomdar ib. 12, and he can decide a case on a document, if it be a genuine one, notwithstanding it is not properly stamped. Reedoy Kisto Muzoomdar v. Puddo Lochan Muzoomdar, ib. 12.

An award will not be invalidated on the ground of its being inconsistent, because the plea of the defendant was proved as to part of the case, and not as to the other; Debraj Roy v. Kartick Chandler, Sircar, ib. 1864, 153, or its being opposed to the written statement of defendant. G.

C. Day v. Paul, ib. vol 7, p. 23.

If a person was in a fit condition to manage his affairs down to the time when the proceedings before an arbitrator, in which he was interested, were substantially concluded, the award will not be invalidated by reason of the person having become insane before its final publication. Gaurinath v. the Collector of Monghyr, ib. P. 5.

An award should be construed not by oral evidence given by the arbitrators, but by looking at the award itself. Musst. Guneshiv. Chettai Lal, N.-W. P., vol 3, p. 117. Should an award be set aside and the matter tried as a suit before the Court, the arbitrator cannot be examined as a witness to the grounds of his decision, but only to prove admissions which may have been made before him in course of arbitration, and which might be material evidence. Nilmorey Bhose v. Mahima Chunder Dat ib., vol 7, p. 516.

The Court's fee payable on a memorandum

of appeal to set aside an award is Rs. 10. It follows from these provisions that the Court is bound to defer passing judgment according to an arbitration award, unless the parties shall have expressly assented thereto. for a period of ten days from the date of submission of the award to the Court, in order to afford an opportunity to either party of filing an application of the nature contemplated in sec. 324, to set aside the award.

A judgment given according to an award being final, the provisions of the Code must be strictly adhered to, as any neglect in the procedure affecting the decision of the case would be fatal to the judgment. Appellate Courts should be careful to satisfy themselves that the requirements of the law on the subject are complied with in every respect. C. Orders. (h) By Act XV. of 1877, Schedule II., No.

158, ten days is the time allowed; this time cannot be extended. Adulji Shaporji v. Tulsi Dass Soonder Dass, Bom, H. C., X., 285.

A Judge has no power to pass judgment till all objections to the award have been finally disposed of, or until ten days after the submission of the award; and the objections must be objections subsequent to such submission. Two arbitrators, having

gone fully into a matter in dispute, wrote signed as their award, and filed in Court different papers bearing different dates, and upon this a defendant filed the petition of objections, and after that, the Judge returned the papers to the arbitrators, with an order that they should sign their award conjointly in a form which he prescribed. On the submission of the award, the Judge took up and disposed of the objections previously inade. These objections were held to be no objections to the award, and the Judge's procedure was held to be quite irregular. Maharajah Sir Mongul Singh v. Mohun Ram Marnaree, ib., vol. 12, p. 398.

The Court cannot sit in appeal from the decision of the arbitrators when it has referred a matter to arbitration, nor can a lower Appellate Court go into the merits of the case. Haradhun Dhut v. Badhanath Shaha, ib. X. 398.

A Court cannot decree interest which arbitrators have not awarded. S. W. R. XXIII., 105, it cannot in any way deal judicially with the merits of the case, but must pass judgment according to the award. (i) Considering the finality accorded by law to judgments passed in accordance with the award of arbitrators, the only safe general rule seems to be to leave the parties unfettered, though there may occasionally be cases in which the Courts may advise a resort to arbitration. Cen. Prov. C. O., vol. 2, p. 7. The addition in a judgment according to an award of a trifling direction upon a matter not referred to the arbitrators, which was quite separable from the other parts of the award, and did not effect the decision on the matter referred, was held not to affect the finality of the judgment. Hura Soondure Dabee v. Sendhar Bhuttacharjee, S. W. R., vol. 17, p. 352.

In order to the validity of a decree on an arbitration award, it is necessary that the award be filed, that the judgment be passed according to the award, and that the decree follow on the judgment and be carried into effect in the same manner as others. Himutoollah Chowdhry v. Bibee Hirun, ib. vol. 13, p. 62.

The Court is not wrong in passing no order on a question at issue omitted from reference to arbitration and on which the award contains no decision. Raj Narrain Roy v. Suggessur Mookerjee,ib,,vol. 14, P. 247.