1990 Supreme(Del) 189
High Court Of Delhi
KANISHKA BUILDERS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Interim Application 8962 of 1989
Decided On : 07/13/1990
Manmohan Sarin, PRAMOD SEHGAL, SUSHIL SALVAN
Service of notice on the Union of India is complete when it is left at the office of the Secretary to the Government, and the time taken in transmission of the notice to the concerned department cannot be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
Headnote:
ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 - SECTIONS 14, 17, 30, 33 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE UNION OF INDIA - SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE FOR DELAY - AWARD - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a direction to the arbitrator to file the original award along with depositions, documents, and arbitration proceedings in Court. The arbitrator filed the award and proceedings, and notice of filing was issued to the petitioner and respondent. No objections to the award were filed within the prescribed period. Respondent No. 1 later filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the notice of filing of the award was served on the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, on 6th February 1989, and the objections were filed on 10th April 1989, beyond the prescribed period. The Court held that the delay in filing objections was not justified and that the respondent had failed to show sufficient cause for the delay.
Issues: 1. Whether the objections to the award were filed within the prescribed period? 2. Whether the delay in filing objections was justified and sufficient cause was shown?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the service of notice on the Union of India was complete when it was left at the office of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, and that the time taken in transmission of the notice to the concerned department (CWE) could not be excluded. 2. The Court found that the respondent had not acted diligently and that the delay occurred due to the respondent's own actions in routing the notice through a long channel down to the CWE, especially in a court case involving limitation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the respondent's objections to the award as barred by limitation and passed a decree in terms of the modified award, deleting the portion allowing pendente lite interest to the petitioner.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that the arbitrator, respondent No. 2, may be directed to file the original award dated 27th of October 1988 together with depositions/docummts and arbitration proceedings in this Court. This petition has been registered as a suit.
( 2 ) AFTER the arbitrator filed and award along with the proceedings etc. in this Court, notice of filing of the award was issued to the petitioner and to respondent No. 1. No objections to the award were, however, filed within the prescribed period. Later, respondent No. filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and thereafter moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. These applications were registered as I. A. 2861/89 and I. A. 8962/89 respectively.
( 3 ) THE record shows that notice of filing of the award was served upon the respondent Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi on 6th of February, 1989. But, the objections were filed on 10th of April, 1989 and the application for condonation of delay on 30th of November, 1989.
( 4 ) SERVICE of notice on the Secretary on 6th of February 1989 is admitted. It has been submitted, however, that the concerned Department in this case is Commander Works Engineer (Project), Delhi Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as the CWE ). After receiving the notice, Office of the Secretary redirected it to Engineer-in-Chief s Branch where it was received on 17th of February 1989. This Branch sent it to the Office of the Chief Engineer, Delhi Cantt. where it was received on 21st of March 1989. From there, it was again redirected to and was ultimately received by CWE on 29th of March, 1989. On these facts, it is claimed that objections to the award filed on 10th of April, 1989 are within limitation. Further, it is submitted that the delay, if any, occured in the course of tranmission of the notice, it was beyond the control of the respondent, and should be condoned.
( 5 ) IN the present case, the suit has been instituted against the Central Government. The Union of India is the authority named as the respondent in accordance with Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is different from a suit against a public officer where the notice has to be delivered to him or left at his office. It is only for the purposes of that kind of a case that the Court may deviate from the usual mode, and if it appears to it that the summons or notice may be conveniently so served, send it for service on the defendant to the head of the office in which he is employed, as envisaged under Order V Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. In the present case, the CWE is not the respondent. This is not a suit against a public officer (the CWE ). It is againt the Central Government. The notice had to be served on the Secretary to the Government and not on anyone else. Therefore, serve of the notice on Union of India was complete when it was left at the office of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence of the Central Government.
( 6 ) THE plea that the CWE is the concerned department and that the time taken in transmission of the notice to him should be excluded, cannot be accepted. The Union of India is an integral authority. This is the authority named as the respondent. It cannot be split into different legal personalities, one being the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and the other the CWC, the so-called concerned department of the Government. It really makes no difference whether the Secretary transmits the notice to the concerned department or not. The service on Union of India is conclusive to reckon the prescribed period under the Limitation Act when the notice is left at the office of a Secretary to the Government.
( 7 ) SINCE the notice of filing of the award was served on the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi on 6th of February