DEO NARAIN CHOUDHURY versus SHREE NARAIN CHOUDHURY

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 31-10-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
DEO NARAIN CHOUDHURY 
A 
v. 
SHREE NARAIN CHOUDHURY 
OCTOBER 31, 2000 
(V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940/limitation Act, 1963-Section 14/Artic/e 119-
Arbitrator issuing notices to parties regarding filing of award before Court-
Respondent filing Caveat for hearing before making Rule of Court-Notice 
of Court to parties intimating the.filing of Award-Period of limitation of 30 C 
days for filing objections-Held, period of limitation starts from the date of 
issue of notice by Court and not from the date of filing of Caveat. 
Appellant and respondent are brothers having a dispute relating to 
possession of a property. The dispute was referred to arbitration. Arbitrator D 
declared an Award on 21st January, 1996. On 14th May, 1996, the arbitrator 
issued notices to both of them that the Award had been made and filed in the 
Court ofSub..Judge. On 1 lth June, 1996, the respondent filed a Caveat before 
the Court praying that before any order is passed on the Award, notice be 
issued; for hearing. On 16th July, 1996, the Court issued notices to the 
partieS about the filing of the Award. The notice was received by the respondent E 
on 25th July, 1996; he filed his objections on 21st August, 1996. The appellant 
contended before the Court that the objections had been filed beyond the 
period of limitation and that the objections should be dismissed and a decree 
in terms of the Award be passed. The Court of Sub-Judge rejected the 
contention of the appellant, which was confirmed by High Court. 
In appeal before the Court, the appellant contended that 'notice' under 
Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 means any communication from 
the Court intimating the parties about the filing of the Award; that there is 
F 
no prescribed mode for issuing notice; and that the notice, can be oral also; 
that the period of limitation starts from the day when the Caveat was filed G 
before the Court, i.e. on 11th June, 1996. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The proposition of law is that notice need not be only in 
H 
307 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A writing but can be oral also. However, the notice must be some act of the 
Court. Mere filing of a Caveat did not start the period of limitation. By the 
Caveat, the respondent was merely asking the Court to give it notice. The 
Caveat did not absolve t_he Court from its statutory duty to give notice under 
Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Order sheet of the Court 
discloses that till 11th July, 1996 the Court was only dealing with the matter 
B administratively. Thereafter on 16th July, 1996 the Court directs giving of 
notice to the parties. The notice was received by the respondent only on 25th 
July, 1996. As the notice was received on ~5th July, 1996, the period of 
limitation started running from that date. The Objections filed on 21st August, 
1996 are within the period of 30 days as provided by Article 119 of the 
C Limitation Act, 1963. 1312-C-F) 
Ch. Ramalinga Reddy v. Superintending Engineer, 11999) 9 SCC 610, 
relied on. 
Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna 
D Ningashetti, 119621, 2 SCR 551; Food Corporation of India v. £. Kuttappan, 
11993) 3 SCC 445 and Government of Karnataka v. Harishbabu, 119961 5 
sec 400, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6104 of 
E 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.99 of the Patna High Court in 
C.R. No. 2173 of 1998. 
P.S. Misra, A. Sharan, Madhu Sharan, Chandra Shekhar, Vishnu Sharma 
F 
and Upendra Mishra for the Appellant. 
G 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Manish Mohan and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. V ARIA VA, J. Leave granted. 
This Appeal is against an Order dated 19th March, I 999 by which the 
Civil Revision filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed. 
H 
The facts necessary for the purpose of this Appeal are as follows: 
.. 
-
DEONARAINCHOUDHURY v. SHREENARAIN CHOUDHURY[S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 309 
Appellant and Respondent are brothers. According to the Appellant A 
their disputes, in respect of a property at Patna, were referred to Arbitration. 
The Arbitrator/Umpire declared an Award dated 21st January, 1996. On 14th 
May, 1996 the Arbitrator/Umpire gave a registered Notice, to both the parties, 
that the Award had been made and that the same was filed in the Court. On 
14th May, 1996 the Arbitrator/Umpire filed the Award in the Court of Sub B 
Judge I 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.