The Court does not have the power to set aside an invalid award suo motu. The remedy for challenging the validity of an award lies in making an application for setting aside the award within the limitation period prescribed under Article 119 of the Limitation Act.

Headnote:
ARBITRATION - SETTING ASIDE AWARD - LIMITATION - NOTICE OF FILING OF AWARD - SERVICE - MODE OF SERVICE - ORDER 29, RULE 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, SECTIONS 14, 30, 33 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963, ARTICLE 119 - INVALIDITY OF AWARD - COURT'S POWER TO ACT SUO MOTU.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, a Co-operative Housing Society, entered into an agreement with the respondents, contractors, for the construction of a building. Disputes arose between the parties, leading to the filing of a suit by the respondents against the appellants for an injunction restraining them from taking possession of the property under construction or interfering with their possession till their dues under the contract were paid. The respondents also filed a suit for a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,65,234-60P in respect of the work completed as well as for damages for wrongful termination of the contract by the appellants. The parties agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration. The arbitrator made his award on January 3, 1978, and informed both parties about the filing of the award in Court. The appellants received the notice of filing of the award on February 18, 1978, but did not take any action until June 14, 1978, when they filed a petition for setting aside the award. The respondents filed two Notices of Motion, one for passing a decree in terms of the award and the other for the appointment of a receiver.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the notice of filing of the award was duly served on the appellants on February 18, 1978, and that the petition for setting aside the award was clearly barred by limitation under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act. The Court also held that the appellants had failed to make out a sufficient case for condonation of delay. The Court further held that the award was not invalid on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding an amount in excess of the claim of the respondents in their suit or on the ground that the arbitrator had failed to publish the award within the time prescribed by the terms of reference. The Court also held that it did not have the power to set aside an invalid award suo motu, as the remedy for challenging the validity of an award lay in making an application for setting aside the award within the limitation period prescribed under Article 119 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice of filing of the award was duly served on the appellants? 2. Whether the petition for setting aside the award was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the appellants had made out a sufficient case for condonation of delay? 4. Whether the award was invalid on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding an amount in excess of the claim of the respondents in their suit? 5. Whether the award was invalid on the ground that the arbitrator had failed to publish the award within the time prescribed by the terms of reference? 6. Whether the Court had the power to set aside an invalid award suo motu?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The mode of service of notice of filing of an award on a corporation is governed by Order 29, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under Rule 2(b), service can be effected by sending the notice by registered post addressed to the corporation at its registered office. 2. The limitation period for filing an application for setting aside an award is 30 days from the date of service of the notice of filing of the award, as prescribed under Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. The Court may condone the delay in filing an application for setting aside an award if the applicant can show sufficient cause for the delay. 4. An award is not invalid merely because the arbitrator has awarded an amount in excess of the claim made by the party in the suit. The arbitrator has the power to award any amount that he deems just and equitable, even if it exceeds the amount claimed. 5. An award is not invalid merely because the arbitrator has failed to publish the award within the time prescribed by the terms of reference. The failure to publish the award within the prescribed time does not affect the validity of the award. 6. The Court does not have the power to set aside an invalid award suo motu. The remedy for challenging the validity of an award lies in making an application for setting aside the award within the limitation period prescribed under Article 119 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---This is an appeal directed against the order of Pendse, J. dismissing the appellants petition for setting aside the Award made by the Arbitrator and duly filed in Court.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition are these: The appellants are a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, having its registered office at Mithagar Road, Mulund (East), Bombay 400 081. The respondents are Contractors carrying on the business of construction. On November 23, 1972, the appellants and the respondents entered into an agreement regarding the construction of a building for the appellant-society. Under the agreement, the construction of the buildings was to be completed within a period of eighteen months from September 20, 1971. The disputes between the appellants and the respondents led to the filing of the suit by the respondents against the appellants in the City Civil Court for an injunction restraining the appellants from taking possession of the property under constructions or from interfering with their possession till the respondents dues under the contract were paid. The respondents filed the suit for an injunction claiming a right of lien in respect of their dues. In the said suit bearing No. 4731 of 1973, the respondents on the same day on which the suit was filed also took out a Notice of Motion for an interim relief if injunction. As the Court declined to grant the ad interim injunction, on July 23, 1973, the respondents filed Suit No. 712 of 1973 on the Original Side of the High Court against the appellants for a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,65,234-60P in respect of the work completed as well as for damages for wrongful termination of the contract by the appellants. It appears that this contract was terminated by the appellants soon after the suit came to be filed in the City Court. On July 25, 1973, the respondents took our a Notice of Motion for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their possession of the property. This Motion came to be dismissed on August 1, 1973. The respondents challenged the order of dismissal of the Notice of Motion in Appeal No. 87 of 1973 filed by them on August 8, 1973. The same day i.e., on August 8, 1973, a consent order came to be passed by the Appellate Court. Under this consent order, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Out of this amount, an amount, of Rs. 1,00,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents on furnishing security. The balance of Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be deposited with the State Bank of India pending the disposal of the said Suit No. 712 of 1973. Thereafter, on April 8, 1974, the respondents filed a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. In this Arbitration Petition, the parties filed consent terms on October 31, 1974. It was inter alia agreed under these consent terms that all matters in dispute between the parties as set out in petition No. 30 of 1974, Suit No. 712 of 1973 in all the proceedings therein and in all the claims and counter claims of the respondents against the appellants, which the respondents shall be at liberty to file before the Arbitrator, and in the reply to the counter claim which the appellants were at liberty to file before the arbitrator, were referred to the arbitration and determination of Shr. H.N. Dallas, Architect of M/s Paralikar and Dallas. It was agreed that the Arbitrator should sign, publish and file in Court his Award in writing within six months from the date of his entering upon the reference. The said sole Arbitrator entered the reference on April 10, 1975. The time for making the Award was extended by the Court from time to time, and the final date fixed before which the Award was to be amde and published by the Arbitrator was January 5, 1978.

3. The Arbitrator held several meetings with the parties on his entering the reference. In the beginning, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document