TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of an arbitration agreement entered into between the parties. Sh. K.N. Venkatesh, Superintending Engineer PWD was appointed as the arbitrator who entered upon the reference and made an award on 22.4.93. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter the Act) before Civil Judge, Ramanagram on 23.4.93 praying for making the Award a rule of court. According to the respondent a signed copy of the award which had been given to him by the arbitrator was also filed along with the petition. Notice of that petition was issued by the Court to the appellant and other respondents on 24.4.93 and was made returnable by 22.6.93. The appellant was not served and on 22.6.1993 the service of notice was directed to 'await' till 13.7.93. On 24.6.93, the learned Arbitrator himself filed the original award in the court of learned Civil Judge, Ramanagram along with certain connected documents. Before filing the award in the court, the arbitrator had procured an endorsement from the Government Pleader to the effect Seen, subject to objections . The Court directed the award and the documents filed by the arbitrator to be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court dated 12.7.1995. 4. According to Shri Altaf Ahmed, the learned Addl. Solicitor General, a notice was required to be issued by the Court under Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant, after the filing of the original award by the arbitrator in the court and since the court had not issued any such notice, both the trial court as well as the High Court fell in error in assuming that the appellant had been served with the notice and that period of limitation had commenced with effect from 24.6.93 when the learned arbitrator filed the original award together with the documents in the court. According to Shri Altaf Ahmed, the appellant could, at the best, be said to have become aware of the filing of the Award on 13.7.93, when the Addl. Government Pleader was present on behalf of the appellants in the court and was directed to file his objections to the memo filed by the respondent seeking final disposal of his petition filed under Section 14/17 of the Act for making the award a rule of the court and therefore the award could not have been made a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, 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, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. Section 17 provides : Judgment in terms of award - Where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow, and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with the award. 7. Article 119 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides the period of limitation : (b) for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration thirty days from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In a case where a party has knowledge aliunde of the filing of the award and seeks time to file objections to the award, absence of a formal notice from the court be rendered immaterial and in such a case the date when the party enters its appearance and either through an application in writing or orally, seeks time to file objections to the award, shall be deemed to be the date of service of the notice within the meaning of Sub-section (b) of Section 119 of Limitation Act read with Section 14(2) of the Act. However, where the order of the court merely records the presence of the parties or their counsel, after an award is filed by the arbitrator in the court, but does not indicate that the notice of the filing of the award has been given to the parties, no service of notice can be presumed from that order. No formality in the act of filing of the award in the court is required but what is required is that the filing of the award must be by or on behalf of the arbitrator and after the same has been filed the notice of the filing of the award must follow from the court under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. If an award is filed by one of the parties the authority of the arb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service of notice under Section 14 of the Act opined. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940) requires the arbitrators or umpire to give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award. Sub-section (2) of that section requires the Court, after the filing of the award, to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The difference in the provisions of the two sub-sections with respect to the giving of notice is significant and indicates clearly that the notice which the Court is to give to the parties of the filing of the award need not be a notice in writing. The notice can be given orally. No question of the service of the notice in the formal way of delivering the notice or tendering it to the party can arise in the case of a notice given orally. The communication of the information that an award has been filed is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 with respect to the giving of the notice to the parties concerned about the filing of the award. 'Notice' does not necessarily mean 'communication in writing'. (Emphasis ours) 13. In view of the settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed with the petition. No objections were invited by the Court in the said notice to the award as such. On 22.6.1993 the additional government pleader appeared for the appellant in response to the above notice. Since, respondent No. 3 the sole arbitrator, to the petition had not been served the case was adjourned to 13.7.1993 without any further proceedings after recording the presence of the parties present before the Court. 16. The arbitrator himself filed the original award along with various documents in the court on 24.6.93, after securing an endorsement from the Government Pleader to the effect seen, subject to objections . It is not disputed that after the learned arbitrator filed the original award in the court on 24.6.93, no notice of the filing of that award was issued by the court for service upon the appellant or the other respondents. 17. As already noticed, on the matter coming up before the Court on 13.7.1993, the respondent filed a memo seeking final disposal of the petition filed under Section 14/17 of the Act and notice of said memo was served on the additional government pleader, who was present in the Court on behalf of the State (appellant herein) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the court, that a notice of the filing of the award would be deemed to have been issued to him by the court on that date. Therefore, the date of communication of the information about the filing of the award from the Court could only be 13.7.1993 and no earlier date. The appellant was directed, through the additional government pleader, to file his objections to the memo filed by the respondent by 31.7.1993 but the appellant did not file any objections by the due date. The omission of the appellant to file objections to the memo, however, could not justify the order of the trial court making the award a rule of the court and directing a decree to be drawn up in terms of the award, when admittedly the period of 30 days as envisaged by Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, which had commenced on 13.7.1993 had not expired on 31.7.1993. We also do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the endorsement made by the government pleader on 24.6.1993 on the award which was then filed by the arbitrator in court would amount to a notice under Section 14(2) of the Act. The endorsement made by the additional government pleader on 24.6.1993 can at b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
