LexBENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE AND ORS. versus KARMYOGI SHELTERS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 1175 BENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE AND ORS. A V. KARMYOGI SHELTERS PVT. LTD. (Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 23860 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996: B ss.2(h), 31(5) and 34 - Delivery of copy of arbitral award c to 'party' - Held: The expression ''party''. as defined in s.2(h) clearly indicates a person who is a party to an arbitration agreement and is not qualified in any way so as to include the agent of the party to such agreement - Therefore, proper compliance with s.31 (5) would mean delivery of a signed copy 0 of Arbitral Award on the party himself and not on his Advocate, which gives the party concerned the right to proceed u/s 34(3) of the Act. An award was made on 12.5.2004 by the arbitrator appointed u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, E 1996. The copy of the award duly signed by the arbitrator was received by the counsel for the respondent on 14.5.2004. The respondent filed a petition u/s 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the award. The petitioner objected that the petition was filed after a delay of more F than 9 months from the date of receipt of the award. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as time barred. However, the Division Bench of the High Court remanded the matter to the Single Judge to decide the objections on the award on merits holding that a G copy of the award had to be delivered to the party itself and service on its counsel did not amount to service within the meaning of s.31 (5) of the Act. 1175 H f A B 1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. In the instant petition, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the service of an Arbitral Award on the agent of a party amounts to service on the party itself, having regard to the provisions of s. 31(5) and s. 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996." Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The expression "party" has been amply dealt with in Tecco Trechy Engineers's* case and also in ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd.'s case. The expression "party", as C defined in s.2(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, clearly indicates a person who is a party to an arbitration agreement. The said definition is not qualified in any way so as to include the agent of the party to such agreement. Any reference, therefore, made in s.31 (5) and D s.34(2) of the 1996 Act can only mean the party himself and not his or her agent, or Advocate empowered to act on the basis of a Vakalatnama. In such circumstances, proper compliance with s.31(5) would mean delivery of a signed copy of the Arbitral Award on the party himself E and not on his Advocate, which gives the party concerned the right to proceed u/s 34(3) of the Act. [para 15) [1184-D-G] Union of India Vs. Tecco Trechy Engineers & Contractors 2005 (2) SCR 983 = (2005) 4 SCC 239; State of Maharashtra F Vs. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) SCR 432 = (2011) 4 SCC 616 - relied on. Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 370 = (2006) 5 SCC 566; and Byram Pestonji G Gariwala Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. 1991(1) Suppl. SCR 187 = (1992) 1 sec 31- distinguished. National Projects Constructions Corporation Limited Vs. Bunde/a Bandhu Constgructions Company AIR 2007 Delhi H 202- referred to. BENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE v. KARMYOGI 1177 SHELTERS PVT. LTD. Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253- A referred to. 1.2 Section 31 (5) of the 1996 Act clearly indicates that a signed copy of the Award has to be delivered to the party. Accordingly, when a copy of the signed Award is 8 not delivered to the party himself, it would not amount to compliance with the provisions of s.31 (5) of the Act. [para 16] [1185-A-B] Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti vs. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti 1962 (2) SCR 551; and East India C Hotels Ltd. Vs. Agra Development Authority 2001 (2) SCR 582 = (2001) 4 sec 175- held inapplicable 1.3 In the instant case, since a signed copy of the Award had not been delivered to the party itself and the 0 party obtained the same on 15.12.2004, and the petition u/s 34 of the Act was filed on 3.2.2005, it has to be held that the said petition was filed within the stipulated period of three months as contemplated u/s 34(3) of the Act. [para 17] [1185-0-E] Case Law Reference: AIR 2007 Delhi 202 referred to para 6 2005 (2)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.