Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Unity Telecom Infrastructure Ltd - Respondent
Notice of Motion No.423, 129, 422, 426, 429, 430, 432, 433, 436 of 2018 In Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.1058, 1059, 1057, 1025, 1026, 1061, 1027 of 2017, 25, 26 of 2018
Decided On : 20-07-2019
For the Appellant : Ms. Disha Karambar - Mulgaonkar with Ms. Priya Rita and Mr. Omkar Dalvi i/b M/s. Disha Karambar & Associates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time taken by an authorized officer to collect an arbitral award and submit it to the concerned party does not extend the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Arbitration Petitions - Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - [Section 34] - The judgment discussed the interpretation of section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the applicability of the time limitation for filing arbitration petitions. The court distinguished previous judgments and emphasized the authorized representation of the applicant in collecting the arbitral award, ultimately dismissing the condonation of delay notices and the arbitration petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing arbitration petitions under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, citing delays ranging from 29 days to over 30 days beyond the three-month period. The applicant argued that the period of limitation should commence from the date the copy of the award was received by the Chief General Manager, not from the date it was collected by the authorized officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the time taken by the authorized officer to collect the award and submit it to the Chief General Manager did not extend the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act. The court distinguished previous judgments and emphasized the authorized representation of the applicant in collecting the arbitral award, ultimately dismissing the condonation of delay notices and the arbitration petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the commencement of the period of limitation for filing arbitration petitions under section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and the authorized representation of the applicant in collecting the arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time taken by the authorized officer to collect the award and submit it to the Chief General Manager did not extend the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act. The court also emphasized the authorized representation of the applicant in collecting the arbitral award.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the notices of motion seeking condonation of delay in filing the arbitration petitions, and consequently dismissed all the arbitration petitions. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. By consent of parties, these notices of motion which are for condonation of delay of various periods in filing the arbitration petitions under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 were heard together and are disposed off by a common order.
2. According to the applicant, there was delay of about 29 days in filing Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017.
3. According to the applicant, there is delay of more than 30 days beyond the period of three months in the other arbitration petitions.
4. The admitted fact is that the impugned arbitral award was rendered by the learned arbitrator on 3rd August, 2017. In paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, it is averred by the applicant that the learned arbitrator telephonically called Shri T.K. Joseph, Divisional Engineer, OFC Project Division, Mumbai and informed that the award was ready and requested to send somebody for collecting the award. An officer from the office of Divisional Engineer, OFC Project Division, Mumbai went to the learned arbitrator’s office and the learned arbitrator handed over the award of all the nine cases to him. The copies of the award was collected on 3rd August, 2017 by the said office bearer of the Divisional Engineer.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the documents i.e. internal notings of the applicant annexed at Exhibit “A” to the affidavit in rejoinder and would submit that the copy of the award was produced before the Chief General manager only on 10th August, 2017 who was the respondent in the arbitral proceedings. He thereafter obtained an opinion from the advocates appearing for the applicant before the learned arbitrator and after obtaining such opinion, lodged the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017 on 7th December, 2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the Chief General Manager was the respondent in the arbitral proceedings, copy of the award served upon the staff member of the applicant on 3rd August, 2017 would not commence the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. She submits that in the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017 since the copy of the award was received by the office of the Chief General Manager only on 10th August, 2017, the period of limitation would commence from 11th August, 2017 and not from 3rd August, 2017. M/s. Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr. and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors which judgment was adverted to by the Supreme Court in the judgment in case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (supra) delivered on 26th July, 2010 in Civil Appeal No.5998 of 2010.
6. Mr.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the documents annexed at Exhibit “A” to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the applicant itself would indicate that Shri T.K. Joseph, DET, OFC (P) and Shri A.S. Sundaram DET Panjim were authorized on behalf of CGM WTP to represent the case before the learned arbitrator. Both the officers were all through out present in the arbitral proceedings in which the learned arbitrator observed that the representative of the Chief General Manager has not only attended the proceedings but also filed various pleadings before the learned arbitrator including the counter claim and the written statement.
7. Learned counsel invited my attention to page no.49 of the affidavit in rejoinder and would submit that in the said document, it is clearly admitted that that the said two officers were authorized on behalf of the Chief General Manager to represent the case before the learned arbitrator. The SDE (Legal) who had collected the copy of the award from the learned arbitrator was authorized to receive the said copy of the award and had
