Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHANDRA REDDY, J.
Puppalla Ramulu
Versus
Nagidi Appalaswami
Civil Revn. Petn. No. 1075 of 1954 to revise order of Dist. Munsiff, Gudivada
Decided On : 03-11-1955
ARBITRATION - APPLICATION FOR DECREE IN TERMS OF AWARD - LIMITATION - ART. 178, LIMITATION ACT - APPLICABILITY - SERVICE OF NOTICE OF MAKING AND SIGNING OF AWARD - NECESSITY - S. 14(1), ARBITRATION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute between the petitioner and respondent 1 regarding rent was referred to arbitration. An award was made on 4-3-1950 under which respondent 1 had to give the petitioner 14 bags of paddy. The award was delivered to the petitioner. As respondent 1 defaulted in complying with this term a suit SC 463 of 1950 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada, for recovering the value of 14 bags of paddy on the basis of the award. This was dismissed on the ground that the award was not embodied in a decree. An application was filed on 21-12-1951 for passing a decree in terms of the award. The application was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by reason of Art. 178, Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application was not barred by Art. 178, Limitation Act, as the period of limitation prescribed in Art. 178 begins to run only from the date of service of notice laid down in S. 14(1), Arbitration Act. Admittedly this was not done in this case.
Issues: Whether the application for passing a decree in terms of the award was barred by Art. 178, Limitation Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application was not barred by Art. 178, Limitation Act, as the period of limitation prescribed in Art. 178 begins to run only from the date of service of notice laid down in S. 14(1), Arbitration Act. Admittedly this was not done in this case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and remanded the O. P. to the lower Court for fresh disposal according to law.
2. There were some disputes between the petitioner and respondent 1 regarding the rent alleged to have been due to the petitioner under a lease of a piece of land. The parties referred the matter to arbitration and an award was made on 4-3-1950 under which respondent 1 had to give the petitioner 14 bags of paddy.
The award was delivered to the present petitioner. As respondent 1 defaulted in complying with this term a suit SC 463 of 1950 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada, for recovering the value of 14 bags of paddy on the basis of trie award. This was dismissed on the ground that the award was not embodied in a decree.
3. The application giving rise to this C. R. P. was filed on 21-12-1951 for the relief mentioned above. The application was opposed chiefly on the plea that the petition was barred by reason of Art. 178, Limitation Act. This objection found favour with the District Munsif and the petition was dismissed. This order is canvassed before me.
4. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Narayana Rao for respondent 1 that this C. R. P. is incompetent as an appeal lies against the order under revision to the Sub-Court. This is founded on a ruling of the Madras High Court in Ponnusami Mudali v. Mandi Sundara, Mudali, ILR 27 Mad 255 (FB) (A) and of Patna High Court in Jagadish Mahton v. Sundar Mahton, ILR 27 Pat 86 : (AIR 1949 Pat 393) (B).
5. To understand the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of law bearing on the subject. Article 178, Limitation Act prescribed a period of 90 days for filing into Court an award under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940, limitation commencing to run from the date of service of notice of the regular award.
6. Section 14, Arbitration Act runs thus :
"14. (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.
(2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under 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. It is not necessary to refer to sub-s. (3) as it has no bearing."
7. The other section of the Arbitration Act that is material is S. 17 which enacts :
"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."
The first point for consideration is whether the application is one filed under S. 14(2) and S. 17 or only one under the latter section. Under S. 14(2) if the arbitrators do not file the award the party can obtain an order of the Court directing the arbitrators to file the award. Can it be extended to a case where the award is already in the Court, no doubt, in connection with some other proceeding?
In my opinion that section can apply only
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
