Municipal Committee Vs. Stylish Sanitary Traders and anr. - Court Judgment

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the Courts below whereby it has been found that an application for making the award rule of the court is beyond the period prescribed by law.

2. The Arbitrator announced its award on 23.12.1985. The parties to the dispute were communicated with the announcing of award vide registered A.D. Post dated 26.12.1985. However, the application for making such award as rule of the court was filed on 18.11.1986. It has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that the application to make the award as rule of the Court is beyond the time prescribed by law.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Single Judge of Patna High reported as Raghunandan Prasad v. Ajodhya Prasad A.I.R. 1982 Patna 212 to contend that the period prescribed in Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the objectors to file objections within a period of 30 days from the date of service of notice of the umpire or filing of the award and not in respect of an application for filing of award.

4. However, I am unable to accept the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 contemplates that when the arbitrators have made their award they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof. Sub-section (2) deals with the situation where the award is required to be filed in Court from the arbitrators at the request of any of the parties to the arbitration or at the instance of any person claiming any such party or if so directed by the Courts. If award is filed then the court is to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.

5. The limitation to deal with the two situation contemplated under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are dealt with separately by Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If an award has been announced and notice has been given by the arbitrators of making and signing thereof, the limitation to seek filing of such award in Court is 30 days as contemplated in Sub-clause (a) of Article 119. The time of making such an application commences from the date of service of the notice of making of the award. Sub-clause (b) of Article 119 deals with the situation where the award is filed in Court and notices given by the Court of the filing of the award. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Article 119 of the Limitation Act reads as under:

14. Award to be signed and filed.- (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.

(2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.

(3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special case under Clause (b) of Section 13 the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of, the award. 119. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940 reconsideration. Applications in specified casesDescription of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run.(a) for the filing in court Thirty days The date of service of the of an award notice of the making of the award.(b) for setting aside an Thirty days The date of service of the award or getting an notice of the filing of theaward remitted for award.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the question of limitation in making an application for filing of the award in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (1993) Supreme Court Cases 572. In the said case, the award was made on February 2, 1965. The carbon copy of the award was sent to the parties vide letter dated 26.2.1965 but an application for making the award a rule of the Court was made on May 20, 1966. In the said case, apart from other arguments it was argued that the application has been made for making the award as rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench of Patna High Court found that there was no implied authority from the arbitrator given to the applicant to file the same to make it a rule of the Court and therefore, the application made by the applicant is governed by Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act. The High Court found that the application made by the appellant in May, 1965 is beyond the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the finding recorded by the Hon'ble High Court. It was held to the following effect:

After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. In cur view, the High Court has rightly held that the application made by the appellant was an application for directing the arbitrator to file the award in Court so that such award is made a Rule of Court. In this case, there was no express authority given by the arbitrator to the applicant to file the award to make it a Rule of Court although a signed copy of the award was sent to the applicant. The forwarding letter clearly indicates that the award was sent for information. Accordingly, the decision of this Court made in Kumbha Mawji case is applicable.

7. In Raghunandan Prasad's case (supra) a Single Bench- of Patna High Court has taken the view that the provisions occurring in Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to a case where an objection is filed to the award and that it does not apply to petition for a direction to the arbitrators to file an award. I am unable to agree, with respect, to the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment. Article 119 as mentioned above is in two parts dealing with different situations. In Sub-clause (a) the time starts running from the date of 'making of the award' whereas it Sub-clause (b) the time starts running from the date of 'filing of the award'. Directions to the arbitrator to file an award falls within Clause (a) of Article 119. In fact, such view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binod Bihari Singh's case (supra) as well.

8. In the present case, the award was sent to the parties vide registered notice dated 20.12.1995. Therefore, in terms of Article 119(a) the time has started running from the date of service of such notice. Admittedly, the arbitrator has not filed award by himself but has produced the award in response to the notice of an application filed by the petitioner for directing the arbitrator to file an award. Therefore, such an application could be moved only within 30 days of the service of the notice of the making of his award. On such award being received by the Court, the objections could be filed to seek setting aside of such an award from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award. Therefore, the objections filed by the petitioner were rightly found by the courts below as beyond the period of limitation.

9. In view of above discussion, I do not any patent illegality or material illegality which may warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the impugned order.

10. Dismissed.