Back
1971 Supreme(Del) 244
High Court Of Delhi
MOTI RAM - Appellant
Versus
MANGAL SINGH - Respondent
Civil 276 of 1968
Decided On : 09/15/1971
B.R.Malik, Vijay Kishan
There is no period of limitation prescribed for the filing of an award by the arbitrators under the Limitation Act, 1908.
Headnote:
ARBITRATION - LIMITATION - FILING OF AWARD - WHETHER ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATION APPLIES TO THE FILING OF AN AWARD BY ARBITRATORS - WHETHER ARTICLE 178, 181 OR 120 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1908 APPLIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the respondents agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. The arbitrators entered upon a reference and the award was signed on 12-1-1958. No action seems to have been taken by any of the parties until the arbitrators themselves by their application of 25-5-1965 tiled the award in the court. On this notices were issued to the parties. Respondent No. 1 Mangal Singh put in an application on 26-7-1965 saying that the arbitrators award filed is correct and that there is no cause for remitting it and that the same may be made a rule of the court. Notice was issued of this application. The petitioner, Moti Ram, objected to the award being made a rule of the court and raised various objections. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the award was presented in court by a proper person? OPP. 2. Whether the petition of the petitioner is barred by resjudicata? OPR. 3. Whether the arbitrators have mis-conducted themselves in the proceedings? OPR. 4. Whether the award has been filed in court within time? OPP. 5. Whether the award has been improperly presented or is otherwise invalid? OPR. 6. Whether the objections filed by respondents are within time? OPR. 7. Whether objections of the objector are maintainable in law? OPR.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that neither Article 158 nor 178 nor 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies. In that view of the matter there is no provision of the Limitation Act, 1908 which is applicable and hence it has to be held that the award filed by the arbitrators was not barred by time.
Issues: 1. Whether the award was presented in court by a proper person? OPP. 2. Whether the petition of the petitioner is barred by resjudicata? OPR. 3. Whether the arbitrators have mis-conducted themselves in the proceedings? OPR. 4. Whether the award has been filed in court within time? OPP. 5. Whether the award has been improperly presented or is otherwise invalid? OPR. 6. Whether the objections filed by respondents are within time? OPR. 7. Whether objections of the objector are maintainable in law? OPR.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 178 of the Limitation Act only applies to the applications made by the parties and not to the filing of the award by the arbitrators. 2. Article 181 of the Limitation Act is restricted to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Article 120 of the Limitation Act contemplates a suit or by analogy an application by a party who is interested in getting some relief from the court. 4. The act of the arbitrators in filing an award is a ministerial act and that he is not thereby seeking any relief from the court for himself or against any other party. 5. There is no provision of the Limitation Act, 1908 which is applicable to the filing of an award by the arbitrators.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE question that arises in this case is whether there is any period of limitation as provided in the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be called the Act) which governs the case when the arbitrators file the award in the court. This is a revision petition against the orders of the courts below holding that the award dated 12-!-195^ hied by the arbitrators on 25-5-1958 is not barred by time.
( 2 ) ON 12-1-1958 the petitioner and the respondents agreed to refer their disputes to the arbitration. The arbitrators entered upon a reference and the award was signed on 12-1-1958. No action seems to have been taken by any of the parties until the arbitrators themselves by their application of 25-5-1965 tiled the award in the court. On this notices were issued to the parties. Respondent No. 1 Mangal Singh put in an application on 26-7-1965 saying that the arbitrators award filed is correct and that there is no cause for remitting it and that the same may be made a rule of the court. Notice was issued of this application. The petitioner, Moti Ram, objected to the award being made a rule of the court and raised various objections. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-
1. Whether the award was presented in court by a proper person? OPP. 2. Whether the petition of the petitioner is barred by resjudicata? OPR. 3. Whether the arbitrators have mis-conducted themselves in the proceedings? OPR. 4. Whether the award has been filed in court within time? OPP. 5. Whether the award has been improperly presented or is otherwise invalid? OPR. 6. Whether the objections filed by respondents are within time? OPR. 7. Whether objections of the objector are maintainable in law? OPR. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of respondent Mangal Singh. Issues No. 2, 5, 6 and 7 were not pressed. Issue No. 3 was also found in favour of respondent: Mangal singh.
( 3 ) THE only issue seriously canvassed was issue No. 4. The objection of the petitioner, Moti Ram, was that the award was signed or 12-1-1958 and it was filed in court by the arbitrators on 25-5-1965 i. e. after a period of 7 years. The contention was that the application of the arbitrators filing the award was beyond time and, therefore no action could be taken on it The trial court, however, took the view that Article 178 of the Act was not applicable and that there was no period of limitation provided for filing an award by the arbitrators in the Act and hence it could not be held that the award filed by the arbitrators was beyond time. As regards the objection that the application moved by respondent Mangal Singh under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act on 26-7-1965 was barred by time, the trial court held that there was no question of limitation involved as once an award has been filed it is the duty of the court either to set it aside or to remit it back to the arbitrators or to make it a rule of the law.
( 4 ) THE petitioner being dis-satisfied with this took up the matter in appeal. The appellate court has also held that Article 178 of the Act could not be applied as award was filed by the arbitrators. It has also held that there is no period of limitation for filing of an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. He has also taken the view that the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act was applicable and therein three years period has been provided which starts from the date when the right to apply accrues and that in this case the right to apply accrued only after the arbitrators had filed in court the award on 25-5-1965 and hence the application filed by respondent No. I on 26-7-1965 was within time. He, therefore, affirmed the order of the court below. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has come up in revision to this court.
( 5 ) MR. Vijay Kishan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not address any argument as to whether the application filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act by respondent Mangal Singh on 26-7-1965 was within
