Harit (1974) 3 SCR 109 had to consider the question
of registration and the effect of non-registration of an
award. The appellant and the respondent therein had
set up a partnership business in the year 1962. The
parties, however, thereafter fell out. At the time the
disputes arose, the running business had a factory and
various movable and immovable properties. On 22-8-
1963, by agreement in writing, the parties referred “the
disputes of our concern” to the arbitration of two
persons and gave “the arbitrators full authority to
decide their dispute”. The arbitrators gave their award
on 10-9-1963. The award made an exclusive allotment
of the partnership assets, including the factory, and
liabilities to the appellant. He was “absolutely entitled
to the same” in consideration of a sum of Rs 17,000
plus half the amount of the realisable debts of the
business to the respondent and of the appellant‟s
renouncement of the right to share in amounts already
received by the respondent. The award, stipulated that
the appellant should not run the factory unless he had
paid the awarded consideration to the respondent. The
arbitrators filed the award in the High Court on 8-11-
1963. On 10-9-1964, the respondent filed an
application for determining the validity of the
agreement and for setting aside the award. On 27-5-
1966, a learned Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the application as time-barred. But he
declined the request of the appellant to proceed to
pronounce judgment according to the award because in
his view: (i) the award was void for uncertainty and
(ii) the award, which created rights in favour of the
appellant over immovable property worth over Rs 100
required registration and was unregistered. From this
part of the order, the appellant filed an appeal which
was dismissed as not maintainable by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The appellant preferred an
appeal by special leave to this Court against the
decision of the Single Judge declining to pronounce
judgment in accordance with the award. He also filed a
special leave petition against the judgment of the
Division Bench. In the appeal before this Court, the
appellant contended that the award was not void for
uncertainty and that the award sought to assign the
respondent‟s share in the partnership to the appellant
and so did not require registration and that under
Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, the court was bound
to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award
after it had dismissed the respondent‟s application for
setting it aside. It was held that the share of a partner
in the assets of the partnership, which had also
immovable properties, was movable property and the
assignment of the share did not require registration
under Section 17 of the Act. But the award in the
instant case, this Court observed, did not seek to assign
the share of the respondent to the appellant, either in
express words or by necessary implication. The award
expressly makes an exclusive allotment of the
partnership assets including the factory and liabilities
to the appellant. It went further and made him
“absolutely entitled to the same”, in consideration of a
sum of Rs 17,000 plus half of the amount of Rs
1924.88 to the respondent and the appellant‟s
renouncement of the right to share in the amounts
already received by the respondent. In express words
the award purported to create rights in immovable
property worth above Rs 100 in favour of the
appellant. It would require accordingly registration
under Section 17 of the Act. As the award was
unregistered, the court could not look into it. The
award being inadmissible in evidence for want of
registration the court could not pronounce judgment in
accordance with it. Section 17 of the Arbitration Act
presupposes an award which could be validly looked
into by the court. The appellant could not successfully
invoke Section 17. The award is an inseparable tangle
of several clauses and cannot be enforced as to the part
not dealing with immovable property.
18. In the instant case also, it appears to us that the
award affects immovable property over Rs 100 and as
such was required to be registered. Shri Ashri,
however, contended that the fact that the award was
unregistered had not been taken before the learned
trial Judge. Indeed, this was not urged within 30 days
and the time for filing of application for setting aside
an award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, was
30 days and as such this not having been taken, the
appellant was not entitled to take this point at a later
stage. It is true that in the application for making the
award a rule of the court before the learned trial Judge
this point had not been taken.”
34. In another two decisions, the first one Siromani v.
Hemkumar and others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1299 relating to
partition amongst the members of the joint family filed a document
deed of partition having transfer of share having value of one
thousand attracts registration. In Kale v. Dy. Director of
Consolidation reported in (1976) 3 SCC 119, it has been held that
family arrangement would not attract registration and in likewise
manner mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement
however, registration would be necessary if the terms of the family
arrangement are reduced into writing. Although, aforesaid decisions
are not on the theme of award filed by the arbitrator after conclusion
of the arbitration proceeding, but implied a condition that registration
is mandatory in all other circumstance save and except where it mere
happens to be memorandum of partition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.592 of 2011
SRI RANJIT KUMAR SINGH,
V
DR. DILIP KUMAR SINGH
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
Date: 9-02-2016
