Back
1977 Supreme(J&K) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT Jammu
I.K. Kotwal, J.
United Builders - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondent
Arbitration Application No. 77/1974
Decided On : 12 July, 1977
Advocate For Appellant: R.P. Bakshi
Advocate For Respondent: R.D. Jamwal
Knowledge of the filing of an arbitration award from an extraneous source does not constitute a valid notice under Article 158 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:
ARBITRATION - LIMITATION - NOTICE OF FILING OF AWARD - SERVICE OF NOTICE BY COURT UNDER SECTION 14(2) OF THE ARBITRATION ACT IS MANDATORY - KNOWLEDGE OF FILING OF AWARD FROM EXTRANEOUS SOURCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
In an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the court appointed an arbitrator to settle disputes between the parties. The arbitrator passed an award on August 5, 1976, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, requesting the arbitrator to file the original award in the court. The respondent also filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, seeking a direction to the arbitrator to file the award. On September 9, 1976, the Deputy Registrar of the court informed the parties about the filing of the award. The respondent filed an objection petition to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on October 5, 1976, challenging its validity. The petitioner objected to the objection petition, arguing that it was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent's objection petition was not time-barred. It found that the respondent had no notice of the filing of the award in the court earlier than September 9, 1976, and therefore, its objection petition was filed within the 30-day limitation period prescribed under Article 158 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: Whether the objection petition filed by the respondent was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for filing an objection petition to an arbitration award starts running only after the party has notice of the filing of the award in the court. The court further held that under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, the court is required to issue notice to the parties that the award has been filed. The court concluded that knowledge of the filing of the award from an extraneous source does not constitute a valid notice under Article 158 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court decided Issue No. 1 in favor of the respondent and against the petitioner, holding that the respondent's objection petition was not time-barred.
"Award has been received from the Arbitrator, L.C. for the parties take notice of filing the same in the Court. They may file objections if any, to the award within the statutory period. Put up for further proceedings before Honble S. B. on 14-10-76."
2. The respondent filed its objection petition to the award u/s 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on Oct: 5, 1976 challenging therein the validity of the award on a variety of grounds, The court also permitted the petitioner to file its objections to the aforesaid objection petition. One of the objections taken was that the objection petition filed by the respondent was time barred. The court vide its order dated Nov. 4, 1976 framed a number of issues out, of which Issue No. 1 which was treated as a preliminary issue ran thus:
"Whether the applications for setting aside the award and objections to the award are barred by Time? O.P.P.
3. The learned counsel for the parties declined to lead any evidence on this issue. It is in these circumstances that I am called upon to decide this issue.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length besides going through the record carefully.
"Description of application : | Period of Limitation | Time from which period begins to run |
158. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, to set-aside an award or to get an award remitted for reconsideration. | Thirty days | The date of service of the notice of filling of the award. |
4. Mr. R. P. Bakhshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under this article a formal service of notice of filing of the award is not necessary. Time under this article, adds the learned counsel, shall begin to run from the day a party acquires knowledge of filing of the award in the court, it being immaterial from what source such knowledge is acquired.
5. To prove that respondent acquired knowledge of the filing of the award, more than thirty days before it filed the objection petition, the learned counsel has relied upon a letter sent by one V. S. Dhameja, probably a subordinate of the Arbitrator Lt. Col. S. S. Bawa. This letter was addressed to the Arbitrator himself and one copy each of this letter was also sent to the parties. This letter is dated August 26, 1976 and states that the award has been filed in the High Court on August 24, 1976. Mr. R. D. Jamwal, the learned counsel for the respondent, has admitted the receipt of a copy of this letter in the following words:
"Receipt of letter is not denied but on which date it was received is to be ascertained from records."
6. The only important thing i.e. the date when this
