IMPORTANT POINT
Notice of filing of award by Arbitrator or Umpire in Court under Section 14 r/w 20 of Arbitration Act may be in writing or oral. What is essential is that there must be service of notice or intimation or communication of the filing of the award to the parties, mode of service of notice being immaterial.

Headnote:Arbitration Act, 1940-Section 14(2) r/w 20 and 30-Arbitration through Court-Award filed by Umpire in Court-Court directed that learned counsel for the parties be informed-Time to file objections taken-No reply objections filed-Award made Rule of the Court-Challenged on ground that no notice under Section 14(2) of the Act was served on the respondent-Accepted by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No)-Appeal allowed-High Court set aside-Lower Court s order restored.
       Held : From a perusal of [Section 14(2)], shorn of unnecessary details, it is clear that notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act need not be in writing and that it can also be oral. What is essential is that there must be service of notice or intimation or communication of the filing of the award to the parties, mode of service of such a notice being immaterial. But such information, communication and knowledge must be by or pursuant to order of the court. However, after filing of an award by the arbitrator or the Umpire in the court, if it merely records the presence of the parties or their counsel but does not indicate that notice of filing of the award be given to the parties, no service of notice can be attributed from that fact, as notice must be referable to an act of the court. (Para 9)
       On 13.11.1998 the Trial Court recorded the fact of filing of the award by the Umpire and directed that learned counsel for the parties be informed. This order was duly noted by the counsel for both the parties. In our opinion the essential requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 14 was duly complied with inasmuch as intimation of filing the award to the parties was communicated. As notice to the counsel is notice to the party, the above order dated 13.11.1998 together with the endorsement of the advocate on the proceeding sheet would amount to a proper and valid service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. We have already mentioned that as per the direction of the court Umpire also filed the record. We, accordingly hold that order dated 13.11.1998 which was noted by the learned counsel, would amount to a valid notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14. (Para 12)
       Held also : In our view a notice issued after filing of the award but before filing of other documents is a valid notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act and no fresh notice need be issued after filing of other documents by the Arbitrator/Umpire. (Para 13)
       Held finally : For what has been stated above we find merit in the present appeals and accordingly they are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. The order of the Additional Civil Judge, Agra dated 25.2.1999 making the award a rule of the court is affirmed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own cost. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Phukan, J.-Leave is granted.

2. In these appeals by special leave, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 1.10.1999 of the High Court of Allahabad passed in Civil Revision No. 106 of 1999. The appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act ) before Additional Civil Judge, Agra, which was allowed and the disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration. After the proceedings were concluded, the Umpire filed the award before the court on 13.11.1998, which was made rule of the court by order dated 25.02.1999. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the order under challenge, on the ground that no notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act was served on the respondent.

3. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the orders passed by the trial court on different dates:

"13.11.1998-Case was called for. The Parties are absent. The Award was filed by the Umpire Shri Jethanandji. Shri Prem Narain Agarwal, learned counsel for East India Hotels and Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for Agra Development Authority be informed. Umpire Shri Jethanandji shall place on record all the papers concerning the Award within fifteen days.

Case be put up on 14.12.1998 for further orders.

Sd/- VIth Addl. Civil

Judge (Sr. Division)

Agra.

Noted for filing of the Award.

Sd/- 13-11-1998

(Counsel for East India Hotel).

Sd/- 19-11-1998

For ADA (Parokar)

Kirpa Shankar.

Sd/-

Suresh Chander Gupta

Sr. Standing Counsel, ADA

23-11-1998."

4. On 28.11.1998 case record was put up and the court recorded the fact of filing of papers concerning the award by the Umpire, as directed by the court and further directed to put up the case on the next date fixed. On 14.12.1998 the presence of the parties was noted but the court could not take up the case for want of time. That order was duly noted on behalf of the respondent. On 4.01.1999 the court recorded filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act by the appellant and noted that a copy was supplied to the respondent who prayed for time to file reply. The case was put up on 7.01.1999, presence of parties was recorded and the next date was fixed on 14.01.1999 as on that date the case could not be taken up on account of strike by the lawyers. On 19.02.1999 parties were present in the court, arguments were heard and on 25.02.1999, the award was made rule of the Court.

5. We have now to determine as to what amounts to service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act.

6. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel has contended that notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 need not be in writing and what is essential is that notice or intimation or communication of filing of Award must be issued and communicated by the court to the parties. According to the learned counsel notice to the counsel representing the party would be sufficient compliance in view of Rule 5 of Order III C.P.C. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that as the order passed by the trial Court on 13.11.1998 was noted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, it was sufficient notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. In the alternative it was contended by the learned senior counsel that if the said order dated 13.11.1998 is not accepted as notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 as along with the award, the records were not filed by the Umpire, the order dated 14.12.1998 would amount to notice, as the order was passed by the trial Court after records were filed by the Umpire and it was duly noted on behalf of the respondent.

7. Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the respondent drawing our attention to the language of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, has contended that only after award along with depositions and connected documents are filed by the Ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 525

Cases Referred (1)