LexCH. RAMALINGA REDDY versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F CH. RAMALINGA REDDY v. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ANR. DECEMBER 2, 1994 [J.S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA ANDS.C. SEN, JJ.] Arbitration Act, 1940/Limitation Act, 1963: Sections 14, 30, 331 Article 119 (b)-Petition to challenge award-Starting point for /imitation- Begins with service of notice of filing of award-Certain claims made by the Contractor .which were barred by contract between parties-Awarded by Arbitrator-Courts justified in interfering since Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award such claims-Payment of interest for the period from the date the Arbitrator entered appearance till date of award-Held; Party entitled to interest for the said period Disputes having arisen in the execution of an excavation contract, they were referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator made an award on 29th July, 1985 and sent it to the Court on 31st July, 1985. It was received by the Court on 5th August, 1985. Notice was issued by the Court on 7th August 1985 and the respondents received it on 10~ August, 1985. Respondents filed petition to challenge the award on 6th September, 1985. The High Court set aside the arbitration award in respect to certain other claims and modified the award in respect of certain other claims. The Contractor preferred these appeals by special leave. The issued raised were (i) Whether the petition filed by the respondents to set aside the award under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act was barred by time; and (ii) Whether the award was vitiated in regard to certain claims. G Answering the questions in the negative, but allowing interest from the date the arbitrator entered upon the reference till the date of award, this Court. HELD : 1. It was found by the High Court that the counsel for the respondent contractor had not drawn its attention to any material to H indicate that notice had been given by the counsel for contractor to the 266 R REDDY v. S.E. 267 Government Pleader about the receipt of the award by the court on the A basis of the directions of the court. It was therefore, clear that no notice as required by Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, IJ.ad been served on the respondents or their advocate on 5th August, 1985. Therefore, that date could not be the starting point for limitation for the filing of a petition to impugn the award. The notice of the filing of the award was given by the court on 7th August, 1983. The petition to B challenge the award· was filed by the respondents on 6th September, 1983. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the petition was in time. [271 F to H] Nilkaotha Shidrameppa Mingeshetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti and others., [1962) 2 SCR 551 and Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd v. C Raunaq and Company Pvt. Ltd, [1988) 4 SCC 33, relied on. Food Corporation of India and Others v. E. Kuttappan, [1993) 3 SCC 445, held inapplicable. 2.1 An award may. be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator D had exceeded his jurisdiction in making it. In the instant case, the arbitrator was required to decide the claims referred to him having regard to the contract between the parties. His jurisdiction, therefore, was limited by the terms of the contract. Where the contract plainly barred the appellant from making any claim, it was impermissible to make an award in respect thereof and the court was entitled to E intervene. [276 B, CJ Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kera/a and Anr., [1989) 1 S.C.R. 663, distinguished. 2.2. It is argued that the court should be very circumspect about F setting aside an award reached by an arbitrator, for parties had agreed that disputes that may arise or had arisen between them should be resolved not by a court of law but by an arbitration, but circumspection did not mean that the court would not intervene when the arbitrator had made an award in respect of a claim whic~ was by the terms of contract between parties, plainly barred. [276 D, E] G Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd, [1993) 2 S.C.C. 106, referred to 3. The arbitrator was appointed by an order of the court and what he was to decide was indicated therein. This entitled him to consider H 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R A such other points as were raised in the pleadings. These pleadings did not make any reference to Claims 2 to 12. The claims in this behalf were made in the pleadings of ~nother suit.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.