TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid Act. In the instant case, since a signed copy of the Award had not been delivered to the party itself and the party obtained the same on 15th December, 2004, and the Petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 3rd February, 2005, it has to be held that the said petition was filed within the stipulated period of three months as contemplated under Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act. Consequently, the objection taken on behalf of the Petitioner herein cannot be sustained and, in our view, was rightly rejected by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. - SLP(C) No.23860 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2012 - ALTAMAS KABIR, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ. For Petitioner(s)- Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR For Respondent(s)- Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR, Mr.Rutwik Panda, AOR J U D G M E N T 1. In this Special Leave Petition, a question has been raised as to whether the service of an Arbitral Award on the agent of a party amounts to service on the party itself, having regard to the provisions of Section 31(5) and Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act". 2. The Petitioner is a Committee of Managing Landlo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court who by his order dated 28th August, 2009, dismissed the Respondent's petition on the ground that the same was time barred. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the Petitioner that the expression "party" used in Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act, would also include the agent of the party. 5. The matter was carried to the Division Bench of the High Court by the Respondent on 5th October, 2009, by way of F.A.O. (OS) No.578 of 2009. Accepting the case of the Respondent that service of the Award had not been properly effected, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Single Judge to decide the objections on the Award on merits, upon holding that for compliance with the provisions of Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act, a copy of the Award had to be delivered to the party itself and service on its counsel did not amount to service within the meaning of Section 31(5) of the aforesaid Act. The Special Leave Petition has been filed against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 6. In arriving at its decision which has been impugned in these proceedings, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to its own judgment in Nation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. " 8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar urged that service of the Award on the Advocate for the party was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, as had been held by a Four-Judge Bench of this Court in Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti vs. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti [1962 (2) SCR 551], which was later followed in East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Agra Development Authority [(2001) 4 SCC 175]. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that in Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti's case (supra) this Court held that intimation to the pleaders of the parties amounted to service of the notice on the parties about the filing of the Award. 9. Mr. Ranjit Kumar also referred to the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd.[(2011) 4 SCC 616], in which this Court, following its earlier decision in Tecco Trechy Engineers's case (supra), held that Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act contemplates not merely the delivery of any kind of copy of the Award, but a copy of the Award which had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, the power given to an Advocate by the Vakalatnama executed in his favour, came to an end and the learned Advocate was no longer entitled to act on the strength thereof. Accordingly, service on the said Advocate would not amount to service even on an agent of the party, even if Mr. Ranjit Kumar's submissions were to be accepted. Mr. Viswanathan, however, contended that service on the learned Advocate of the party cannot be treated as service of the Award on the party itself, as had been very clearly held in the very same decision referred to by Mr. Ranjit Kumar in Pushpa Devi Bhagat's case (supra). 13. Referring to the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Tecco Trechy Engineers's case (supra), Mr. Viswanathan submitted that the decision rendered therein completely covered the issue raised in this Special Leave Petition. Learned counsel submitted that on a construction of Sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, the learned Judges had held that "service on a party" as defined in Section 2(h) read with Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, had to be construed to be a person directly connected with and involved in the proceedings and who is in control of the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, when a copy of the signed Award is not delivered to the party himself, it would not amount to compliance with the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Act. The other decision cited by Mr. Ranjit Kumar in Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti's case (supra) was rendered under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which did not have a provision similar to the provisions of Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act. The said decision would, therefore, not be applicable to the facts of this case also. 17. In the instant case, since a signed copy of the Award had not been delivered to the party itself and the party obtained the same on 15th December, 2004, and the Petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 3rd February, 2005, it has to be held that the said petition was filed within the stipulated period of three months as contemplated under Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act. Consequently, the objection taken on behalf of the Petitioner herein cannot be sustained and, in our view, was rightly rejected by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 18. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition must fail and is dismissed. 19. There will, however, be no order as to costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
