Report No. 89
32.111. Arbitration awards.- The article has not given rise to any conflict of views. There was a suggestion in earlier cases of the Allahabad High Court1 (though not followed later on)2, that an award can be equated as a "contract" and a suit to claim specific performance on the basis of the award comes within the purview of this article. The point has lost its practical importance, because, in view of section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, no suit can be filed to enforce an award.
1. (a) Talewar Singh v. Baheri Singh, 1904 ILR 26 All 497;
(b) Raghubar Dial v. Madan Mohan Lal, 1893 ILR 16 All 3;
(c) Sukho Bihi v. Ram Sukh Das, 1883 ILR 5 All 263.
2. (a) Surat Singh v. Utnrao Singh, AIR 1922 All 410; (b) Sheo Narain v. Reni Madho, 1910 ILR 23 All 285.
32.112. No change needed.- However, even now it is possible to envisage certain awards saved from the purview of the Arbitration Act by virtue of sections 46 and 47 of that Act, but in such cases, the statute setting up the machinery of arbitration would usually itself provide for the enforcement of the award. If not, the residuary article in the Limitation Act can apply. Consequently, we recommend no change in Article 54.
32.113. Article 55.- Article 55 reads as under:
|"For compensation for the breach of any contract express or implied not herein specially provided for.||
|When the contract is broken or (where there are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) when it ceases."|
Articles 115 and 116 of the Act of 1908 were as follows:
|"115. For compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied, not in writing registered and not herein specially provided for.||
|When the contract is broken or (where there are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit instituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) when it ceases."|
|"116. For compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered.||
|When the period of limitation would begin to run against a suit brought on a similar contract not registered.|
This was identical with Articles 115 and 116 of the Act of 1877. In the Act of 1871, Articles 115 and 117 were in the same. terms.
32.114. Law Commission's Report.- In the Act of 1908, Article 115 dealt with unregistered contract, either oral or in writing, while Article 116 provided for registered written contract. This dichotomy was found unnecessary by the Law Commission which1, in its Report on the Act of 1908, recommended as under:
"If simplification is desirable, as undoubtedly it is, all the above-mentioned articles may be omitted and a provision may be made as in the English Act, that in case of suits founded on contract, time runs from the date on which the cause of action accrues and a uniform period of three years may be prescribed. It is not necessary to retain the period of six years in case of registered contracts on the analogy of specialist debts under English law." The change has put an end to many of the earlier controversies which had centered on the difference between the two articles. No further comments are needed on Article 55.