BINOD BIHARI SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 08-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BINOD BIHARI SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
DECEMBER 8, 1992 
B 
[B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940-Section 17-Contractor's application dated 
20.5.1966 filing carbon copy of award dated 26.2.1965 to make the award a 
rule of Court-Legality of-Plea of law of limitation-Whether proper-Con-
e donation of delay-Whether possible . 
. Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Appeal-Plea of law of 
limitation in filing application u/s. 17 of Arbitration Act-Legality of-Con-
donation of delay-Whether possible-Findings of High Court-Justification. 
D 
A contract was entered between the appellant and the respondent on 
E 
F 
10th December, 1957 for loading, unloading and handling of goods at 
Gaya Goods Shed of the Eastern Railway for the period of 3. years. 
The Railway Administration terminated the contract before the 
completion of the period of contract. 
In terms of arbitration clause in .the agreem~nt for reference of the 
dispute arising out of the contract, an arbitrator was initially appointed 
by the Railway. Appellant disputed the appointment. 
The High Court appointed an arbitrator by consent of the parties. 
The arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing the 
parties, made an a\'1-ard in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.82,100 
on 26th February, 1965. 
G 
The arbitrator forwarded the signed copy of the a\vard to the appel-
lant alongwith a forwarding letter dated 20th February, 1965, indicating 
therein that he had signed and published the award on 26th February, 
1965, and the same was being sent for the information of the appellant. 
On 20.5.1966, the appellant made an application under section 17 of 
H the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of court and for directing -
468 
-
BINOD BIHARI v. U.O.l. 
469 
the arbitrator to file the award in Court before the Subordinate Judge. 
A 
Though the respondent in the petition of objection did not take the 
plea of bar of limitation, but the plea was raised latter. 
The Subordinate Judge rejected the plea of bar of limitation and the 
award was made a Rule of Court. 
B 
The respondent preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal in the High Court 
against the decision of the Subordinate Judge. 
In the appeal, the respondent raised the bar of limitation and 
. challenged the correctness of the decision made by the Subordinate Judge. 
The applicant contended that he had received the signed copy of the 
award alongwith forwarding letter of the arbitrator only in first week of 
May, 1965 and the application for making the award a Rule of Court made 
by him was not time barred. 
Keeping the Miscellaneous Appeal pending, the High Court made a 
limited remand to the Subordinate Judge for answering two issues:-
(i) When did the petition respondent get notice of the making of the . 
award from the arbitrator? 
(ii) Whether on the findings arrived at by the court below, the 
application itself was barred by limitation? 
c 
D 
E 
The Subordinate Judge came to the finding that in view of the 
presumption that the registered cover containing the signed award and F 
the forwarding .Jetter should have reached by first week of March, 1965. It 
held further that although no written authority wa.s given by the ar-
bitrator, an implied authority of the arbitrator was there in filing the 
award in the Court. The Subordinate Judge also held that the signed copy 
of the award filed by the applicant should be treated as an original award 
and the court was competent to pass appropriate order on the basis of the 
signed copy of the award since filed by the applicant. In such circumstan-
ces, the provisions of Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act was not at-
tracted. The Subordinate Judge also held that in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, Article 137 of the Limitation Act was attracted 
G 
and the period of limitation being three years under the residuary Article, H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the application made by the applicant was not time barred; and that even 
if it was assumed that the case was governed by Article 119(a) of the 
Limitation Act, it was a fit case for condoning the <lelay in presenting the 
application· beyond the period of limitation. 
B 
The High Court held that there was no implied authority from the 
arbitrator given to the applicant to file the same to make it a rule of court 
and the forwarding letter of the arbitrator had indicated that the same 
was sent only for information of the concerne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.