TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sively clear by use of the words 'but not thereafter'. Service of arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel amounts to service on the other appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act. Anilkumar Patel has gone to the extent of even disputing his signature in the award dated 07.07.1996 by drafting choreographed petition. Having accepted the award through Anilkumar Patel, being the head of the family, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 cannot turn round and contend that they had not received the copy of the award. The application filed under Section 34 of the Act by Anilkumar Patel and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 was barred by limitation - appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 3313 of 2018, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15668 of 2012) And Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2018, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15741 of 2012) - - - Dated:- 27-3-2018 - Mr. R.K. Agrawal And Mr. R. Banumathi JJ. For the Parties : Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv., Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv., Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv., Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Adv., M/S. K J John ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer, NPK allocation etc. The said IMOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members. Similarly, Anilkumar Patel signed in the IMOU for himself and also as a power of attorney holder for his wife, his all sons and daughter-in-law. 5. The arbitrators arrived at Jalgaon on 04.07.1996 and continued with the arbitration proceeding and passed the award on 07.07.1996 (with a mention of IMOU dated 29.06.1996) under which certain properties were given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel whereas some other assets were kept undivided with equal rights and interest thereon of both groups. The award was written in Gujarati language by hand by the arbitrators and signed by the arbitrators. The copy of the award was given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel by arbitrators in person which was duly acknowledged by them. Copy of the award bears signature of both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel with recital that they and their family members will act as per the award and will give effect to the same. Then by an award dated 03.11.1996, the issues between appellants and respondents were finally decided taking note of earlier awards. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vantage on the basis of the said award. 8. Insofar as the challenge to the award dated 07.07.1996, the District Judge vide order dated 14.02.2011 allowed the application under Section 34 of the Act inter alia , holding that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act is to be computed from the point of time when the party concerned received the copy of the arbitral award. The District Judge set aside the award holding that number of serious issues have been raised in application under Section 34 and there is nothing to show that Anilkumar Patel was authorised by the other applicants to receive a copy of the award on their behalf and it cannot be said that the appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 had received the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act. 9. Being aggrieved, Pravinchandra Patel filed W.P. No.4669 of 2011. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2012 set aside the order of the District Judge holding that the petition filed in the year 2005 under Section 34 of the Act was time barred. The High Court held that sofaras the award dated 03.11.1996, the findings in W.P.No.7614 of 2006 have attained finality which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of copy of award by Anilkumar Patel was for himself and on behalf of his family members? (2) Whether the High Court was right in holding that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award was barred by limitation? 13. Section 34 of the Act provides for filing of an application for setting aside an arbitral award. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act lays down the period of limitation for making the application. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reads as follows:- 34 . Application for setting aside arbitral award.- (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with subsection (2) and sub-section (3). (2) ......... (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which would be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings. 16. In State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd ., (2011) 4 SCC 616, while following the judgment in Tecco Trichy Engineers case , held that the expression ... party making that application had received the arbitral award... cannot be read in isolation and it must be understood that Section 31(5) of the Act requires a signed copy of the award to be delivered to each party. By cumulative reading of Section 34(3) and Section 31(5) of the Act, it is clear that the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act would commence only from the date of signed copy of the award delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside. 17. Contention of the appellants is that the other members of Anilkumar's family viz ., appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erim MOU on 29.06.1996 (IMOU). The covenants of the said IMOU covered the matters relating to bank account and withdrawal of power, NPK allocation etc. The said IMOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel with the following endorsement:- P.J. Patel (Group No.1) for self and also as Power of Attorney Holder for wife and all daughters . Similarly in the said IMOU, Anilkumar Patel signed for himself and on behalf of his family members, as seen from the following endorsement:- A.J. Patel (Group No.2) for Self and also as Power of Attorney Holder for wife, all sons and daughter-in-law. 21. The award dated 07.07.1996 was signed by both the arbitrators. The award was also signed by Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel. Both of them have undertaken to implement the award with their free will and pleasure, as seen from the following:- As per this Arbitration Award , both the groups and their family members have to honestly, wholeheartedly and faithfully act in accordance with and implement the transaction of the property, the IMOU which is now considered as MOU and the accounting chart in respect of the companies and the firms. ........ The aforesaid Arbitration Awar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and take a decision as to whether an application under Section 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances, in our considered view, service of arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel amounts to service on the other appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act. 24. The High Court has enumerated various circumstances which indicate that Anilkumar Patel was well aware of the award dated 07.07.1996 and also relied upon the award in internal communication between the parties and various legal proceedings. Inter Office Memo dated 22.07.1996, sent by Anilkumar Patel to Pravinchandra Patel, seeking for delivery of file of Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, Taluka Brandol. Anilkumar Patel has stated that in Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, agricultural land has come to his share and since some dispute has been raised by the party by whom the sale-deed is to be executed, Anilkumar Patel requested to handover the file maintained in connection with the agricultural land mentioned in Gat No.266/2. The said Inter Office Memo clearly shows th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
