SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 695

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Francisco A. D'Souza & Another – Appellant
Versus
L & T Finance Ltd. – Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 1231 of 2014
Decided On : 30-04-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Zahara Tejani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Anand Poojary a/w S.I. Joshi, Advocates.

Deemed service of notices under Section 3(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act can establish the commencement of the limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.

Headnote:

Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Limitation - Deemed Service - Sections 3(1)(b) and 27 of the Arbitration Act and General Clauses Act - The court held that the notices sent by registered post A.D. at the last known addresses of the petitioners and not returned by the postal authority amounted to deemed service. The petitioners' claim of not residing at the addresses where the award was served was inconsistent and contrary to their earlier statements, and the court found that the petitioners did not come to the court with clean hands. The petition was dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of service of the impugned award.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, impugning an arbitral award. The respondent raised an objection of limitation in filing the petition, claiming that the award was served at the last known addresses of the petitioners and the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notices sent by registered post A.D. at the last known addresses of the petitioners and not returned by the postal authority amounted to deemed service. The petitioners' claim of not residing at the addresses where the award was served was inconsistent and contrary to their earlier statements, and the court found that the petitioners did not come to the court with clean hands. The petition was dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of service of the impugned award.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petition was filed within the prescribed period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, considering the deemed service of the award at the last known addresses of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act to establish deemed service of the notices sent by registered post A.D. at the last known addresses of the petitioners. The court also considered the inconsistency in the petitioners' claim of not residing at the addresses where the award was served.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of service of the impugned award.

Judgment :-

1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 18th September 2012 made by the learned arbitrator.

2. At the threshold, Mr. Poojary, learned counsel for the respondent raises an objection of the limitation in filing present arbitration petition impugning the arbitral award dated 18th September 2012 which was lodged on 22nd April 2014. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the compilation of documents forming part of the record before the learned arbitrator and in particular some of the acknowledgments duly signed by the petitioner no.1 and/or his relatives. In so far as the service of the impugned award is concerned, my attention is invited to page 75 of the compilation which indicates that the award was sent by the learned arbitrator at the two addresses i.e. House No.142/B, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403 507 and also House No.247, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403 507.

3. In so far as the award sent at the address of House No.142/B, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403 507 is concerned, the same has been acknowledged by the person who claimed to be the relative of the petitioner no.1.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the cause title of the petition in which the petitioner no.1 has given both the addresses as his addresses which were mentioned in the two acknowledgment cards. My attention is also invited to paragraph 1.1 of the petition in which the petitioners have averred that the petitioner no.1 has been residing at the addresses mentioned in the cause title of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner no.2b in which it is alleged that the petitioner no.1 does not reside at House No.247, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403 507 but resides at House No.142/B, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403 507 and his relative Mary D’Souza resides and she has taken the service of the award. The petitioner no.1 has himself not filed any rejoinder. Learned counsel for the respondent accordingly submits that the copy of the award was sent by the learned arbitrator at the last known address of the petitioners. He submits that at the same address, various notices were also sent to the petitioner no.1 by the learned arbitrator, the receipt of which the petitioners did not dispute. The petitioners had made false and incorrect statements in the rejoinder that the petitioner no.1 was not residing at House No.247, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403 507 which is also ex facie inconsistent with the averments made in the petition.

6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of JasvinderKaur Vs. L & T Finance Ltd. & Anr. delivered on 12th March 2015 in Arbitration Petition No.1053 of 2012 and in particular paragraphs 15 and 18 thereof and would submit that since the award was delivered at the last known addresses which addresses were not disputed by the petitioner no.1 in the petition, in view of Section 3(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act, the copy of the award is deemed to have been served upon the petitioner no.1 at the last know addresses and cause of action for filing of the arbitration petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act would be commenced from the date of such service or in any event deemed service under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Paragraphs 15 and 18 of the said judgment read thus:-

“15. Section 3 (1) (b) of the said Arbitration Act makes it clear that even if a place of business, habitual residence or mailing address of a party cannot be found after making a reasonable inquiry, a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee’s last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top