http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/1966

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  526            1967 SCR  (1) 543

ACT: Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940), s. 14(2)-Award-Copy  of award  required to be filed in Court-Umpire certifying  copy of award to be a true copy and then signing award-Such  copy whether  a  ’signed copy’ within  meaning  of  section-Sign, meaning of.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  entered into a contract with the,  Union  of India  for the construction of certain railway bridges.   On disputes arising the matter went to arbitration and then  to an  umpire.   After  the  umpire  had  made  his  award  the appellant  filed  an application under s. 14 of  the  Indian Arbitration Act 1940, praying that the umpire be directed to file  the award or a signed Copy thereof in the terms of  s. 14(2).   The umpire filed in the Court a copy at the top  of which he wrote : "now I hereby reproduce a true copy of  the said  award which is as follows." At the end of the copy  of the award he wrote : "Certified as correct copy of the award dated  27th  May 1961." Under this  the  umpire’s  signature appeared.  It was objected by the Union of India before  the court that the copy of the award so filed was not a  "signed copy"  of  the  award as required by s.  14(2)  but  only  a "certified copy".  The objection was upheld by the court and the appellants application for passing -a judgment in  terms of the award was dismissed.  A revision petition before  the High Court failed.  The appellant then came to this Court by special leave. HELD  :  When a document is an accurate or  true,  and  full reproduction  of  the original it would be a copy.   In  the present  case  what was produced by the umpire  was  a  true accurate  and  full reproduction of the  original.   It  was therefore a copy of the original. [845 H] It  was also a signed copy because it bore the signature  of the  umpire.  A document must be signed in such a way 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 an  instrument  is,  or in what part  of  it  the  signature occurs.  The fact that the umpire wrote the words "certified as correct copy of the award dated the 27th May 1961"  above his  signature did not make any difference and the  document was  still  a signed copy of the award.  If  anything  these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

words showed that the document filed was a true copy of  the award. [846 D, H; 847 A-B] Mohesh  Lal  v. Busunt Kumaree, I.L.R. (1881) VI  Cal.  340, relied on.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1966. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated December  17, 1964 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench) at Delhi in Civil Revision No. 159-D of 1963. M.   C.  Setalvad,  Veda  Vyasa  and K.  K.  Jain.  for  the appellants. S.   G.  Patwardhan, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar,  for  the respondent. 844 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo,  J. This is an appeal by special leave against  the judgment  of  the  Punjab  High  Court  and  arises  in  the following  circumstances.   The  appellant  entered  into  a contract  with  the Union of India, respondent  herein,  for construction of certain highway bridges.  In connection with the  execution of the contract, some disputes arose  between the  parties and were referred to the joint  arbitration  of Sri  B.  K.  Guha  and  Sri N.  P.  Gurjar.   As  there  was difference  of  opinion  between the  two  arbitrators,  the matter  was  referred  to  an  umpire,  namely,  Sri  Dildar Hussain,  retired  Chief Engineer,  Hyderabad.   The  umpire recorded  evidence of the parties and gave his award on  May 27,  1961.  It appears that the award was made in  duplicate and one copy was sent to each party.  On August 4, 1961, the appellant made a petition before the Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi under ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, No. 10  of  1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  it  was prayed that the umpire be directed by the court to cause the award or a signed copy thereof together with any depositions and documents which might have been taken and proved  before him  to  be filed in court (s. 14).  It was  further  prayed that a judgment be passed in terms of the award (s. 17). It appears that on this petition the court issued notice  to the   umpire   to  file  the  award  and   the   arbitration proceedings.  On September 13, 1961, the umpire wrote to the court  that  he was forwarding along with  that  letter  the award  in  the case duly signed and certified  by  him.   On November  1, 1961, an objection was taken on behalf  of  the respondent  that  the award said to have been filed  by  the umpire  had not been validly and legally filed under  s.  14 and  as such no proceedings in pursuance of the said  filing could be taken in court. This objection was considered as a preliminary objection  by the  Subordinate Judge.  He came to the conclusion that  the document filed in court was neither the original award nor a signed  copy thereof, and as such the court could  not  take any  action  on  that document.  He  therefore  allowed  the objection  and  dismissed the application under  s.  17  for passing  a  judgment in terms of the award.   The  appellant then  went  in revision to the High Court.  The  High  Court dismissed the revision application holding that the document filed  in  court was admittedly not the original  award  and that it was clear from a perusal of the document itself that it  was  not  a signed copy  thereof.   Certain  alternative arguments  were  submitted  to the  High  Court  which  were rejected   and   the  revision  application   thus   failed. Thereupon the appellant obtained special leave, and that  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

how the matter has come up before us. The main question that has been argued on behalf of the  ap- pellant is that the document in question is a signed copy of the 845 award  within  the meaning of those words in  s.  14(2)  and therefore  further proceedings should have been taken  under s. 17 of the Act.  Now the relevant part of s. 14 (2)  reads thus :               "(2)  The arbitrators or umpire shall, at  the               request  of  any  party  to  the   arbitration               agreement  or any person claiming  under  such               party or if so directed by the court.... cause               the  award  or a signed copy of  it,  together               with  any depositions and documents which  may               have been taken and proved before them, to  be               filed in court..........." Therefore  when  a  notice  is issued  by  a  court  to  the arbitrators  or  umpire it is their duty to  file  in  court either  the  award in original or a signed copy  thereof  as directed  by  the court.  It is not in dispute that  in  the present  case  the original award has not been  filed.   The dispute  is whether the document filed is a signed  copy  of the  award.  The main contention on behalf of the  appellant is  that the document is a signed copy of the  award  within the meaning of those words in s. 14(2), and thus should have been  acted  upon by the court.  On the other  hand,  it  is contended  on  behalf of the respondent that what  has  been filed is a certified copy of the award and not a signed copy thereof,  and therefore it cannot be acted upon.   The  High Court has accepted the contention of the respondent and  all that  it has said in that behalf is that it is clear from  a perusal  of  the award that it is not a signed copy  of  the award but it is certified as correct copy of the award dated the  27th May, 1961.  Unfortunately, the High Court has  not considered what exactly the words "signed copy of the award" mean, and it is to this problem that we must now turn. Now  the  word "copy" as such is not defined in  the  Indian Evidence  Act,  of 1872.  But we get an idea of what a  copy is  from the provisions of s. 63 of the Evidence Act.   That section inter alia defines what secondary evidence means and includes namely--(i) certified copies as provided, in s.  76 of  the Evidence Act, (ii) copies made from the original  by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies, and (iii) copies made from or compared with the original.   Obviously, therefore a copy means a document prepared from the original which  is  an  accurate or true copy of  the  original.   In Webster’s  New  World Dictionary, the word "copy"  means  "a thing  made  just  like  another  ;  full  reproduction   or transcription".  What the word "copy" in s. 14(2)  therefore requires  is  that  it must be a full  reproduction  of  the original  and  that it should be accurate or true.   When  a document is an accurate or true and full reproduction of the original it would be a copy.  In the present case it is  not in dispute that what was produced by Sri Dildar Hussain  was a  true or accurate and full reproduction of  the  original. It was therefore a copy of the original, and the 846 only question that remains is whether it was signed, for  if it was signed, it would be a signed copy. 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, authorising action etc."  To

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

write one’s name is signature.  Section 3(56) of the General Clauses Act, No. 10 of 1897, 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 Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree(1), 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 way 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.  It would in such circumstances be immaterial whether the arbitrator or umpire put down the words "certified to be true  copy"  before  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 as 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. (1)(1881)1.L.R.6Cal.340. 847 The  fact  that  the umpire wrote the  words  "certified  as correct  copy of the award dated the 27th May,  1961"  above his  signatures does not in our opinion make any  difference and  the document it still a signed copy of the  award.   If anything,  these  words show that document filed is  a  true copy  of  the  award and as it bears the  signature  of  the umpire,  it is a signed copy thereof.  It may be added  that the  words "now I hereby reproduce a true copy of  the  said award which is as follows" which appear at the beginning  of the  document and which are signed by the umpire Sri  Dildar Hussain also in our opinion are sufficient to show that what was  produced  in court was a signed copy of  the  award  as required by s. 14(2). In  this view of the matter, it is unnecessary  to  consider the alternative argument raised on behalf of the  appellant. We  therefore allow the appeal and set aside the  orders  of the  courts  below and, holding that a signed  copy  of  the award  has been filed as required by s. 14(2),  direct  that further proceedings will be taken in the matter as  required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

by  law by the Subordinate Judge in whose court  the  signed copy of the award was filed.  Costs of this Court will abide the final result. G.C.                                      Appeal  allowed 848