1996(1) Supreme 418
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. & Suhas C. Sen, J.
Patel Motibhai Naranbhai & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Dinubhai Motibhai Patel & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1502 of 1996
Decided on 9-1-1996
Held : Under sub-section (2) of Section 14, a duty is cast upon the arbitrator to file the award or cause the award to be filed in the Court at the request of the party to the arbitration agreement or if so directed by the Court. There is no provision which requires the arbitrator to apply to the court for filing of the award and pass a decree in terms of the award. An application for filing the award in court has to be made within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of making of the award under Article 119 of the Limitation Act. Even if it is held that Article 119 will apply only to an application made by a party and not by the arbitrator, Article 137 will come in the way of the arbitrator s making any application beyond the period of three years from the date of making of the award. (Para 8)
The Court should have declined to entertain the application moved by the Arbitrator nearly six years after making of the Award. Without the application of the Arbitrator, the application made by Jayantikumar Ishwarbhai Patel under Section 14(2) could not survive. The Court should not come to the aid of a party where there has been unwarrantable delay in seeking the statutory remedy. Any remedy must be sought with reasonable promptitude having regard to the circumstances. (Para 8)
In our view, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 cannot be allowed to circumvent the law with the help of the Arbitrator and obtain indirectly an order under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, which they could not do directly. (Para 9)
JUDGMENT
Sen, J.-Leave granted.
2. This case arises out of a property dispute between Motibhai Naranbhai Patel and Chandrakant Motibhai Patel, the appellants herein, and Pravinbhai Ishwarbhai Patel. Mahendrakumar Ishwarbhai Patel and Jayantikumar Ishwarbhai Patel, the respondents.
3. The dispute, by mutual consent was referred to arbitration. Dinubhai Motibhai Patel, an Advocate was selected as Arbitrator by the parties. The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator on 21st May, 1985. The Arbitrator made his Award on 26th February, 1986 and gave intimation of the Award to all the parties. Thereafter on 24.4.1986 Chandra-kant Dave, an Advocate wrote to the Arbitrator on behalf of the appellants :-
"You have recently given an award as an Arbitrator between my clients and the heirs of his deceased brother Shri Ishwarbhai Naranbhai Patel with regard to the properties and present distribution adhered in some of the representation made by our clients have not considered and thereby my clients hereby raise written objection against the award being filed and hence as an Arbitrator you should not initiate any steps to file."
4. Because of this letter or for some other reason, the Award was not filed in Court. Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it was open to any of the parties to the arbitration to request the Arbitrator to file the Award in Court. The parties could also apply to the Court for a direction upon the Arbitrator to file the Award. Neither of these two steps were taken by the appellants or the respondents. Under Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application for filing the Award in Court could be made within a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice of the making of the Award. An application for setting aside of an Award could be made also within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the Award. Since the Award was not filed in Court, the question of applying for setting aside of the Award did not arise. But the right to apply to the Court for filing of the Award, expired after thirty days of the service of the notice of making of the Award. Neither of the two parties tried to enforce the Award. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the parties had come to a settlement in the meantime. But the letter written on 24th April, 1986 by the advocate on behalf of the appellants does not indicate that any such settlement had been arrived at. On 31st January, 1992 Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, the fourth respondent herein, instituted a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay in which one of the prayers was for permanent injunction upon the defendants from putting up any illegal or unauthorised construction on the suit property, viz., plot of land being S.No. 61, Hissa No. 5, Part, admeasuring 1932 sq. yards and industrial shed and also plot of land bearing S.No. 22, Hissa No. 1, Part, admeasuring 295 sq. yards situated at Valnai, Ramachandra Lane Extension, Malad (West), Bombay.
5. The plaintiff claimed his right over the suit properties on the basis of the Award dated 26th February, 1986 passed by the Arbitrator. On 5th February, 1992, Motibhai Naranbhai Patel, appellant No. 1, filed his reply raising the point of maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit was in effect filed to enforce an Award which has neither been registered nor make the rule of the Court in accordance with law.
6. Promptly, thereafter, on 8th February, 1992, Jayantikumar Ishwarbhai Patel asked the Arbitrator to file the Award, passed on 26th February, 1986, in Court. After a long lapse of six years, the Arbitrator Dinubhai Motibhai Patel not only made an application for filing the Award in Court but also applied for a decree in terms of the Award and engaged a lawyer for this purpose. This action of the Arbitrator is incomprehensible. It appears that he had decided to shed the mantle of an ar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.