EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. versus AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 21-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. 
v. 
AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
MARCH 21, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 14(2). 
ArlJitrationAward-Filing of-Notice to pa!ties-Requiremenr and mode 
of se1vice of-Umpire filed award in cow1--Couf1 directed counsel for parties 
be informed-Counsel for the parties noted this order-Subsequently, award 
made rule of cou11-However, High Court set aside award on ground that no 
notice under S. 14(2) served on the aggrieved party-Correctness of-Held: 
Notice under S. 14(2) need not be in writing; it can also be oral-But there must 
be service of notice or intimation or communication of the filing of award to the 
patties-Mode of sen1ice immaterial-Notice to counsel is notice to pa11y and, 
therefore, court's order is proper and valid service of notice-Hence, High 
Cou11 erred in setting aside the award. 
The disputes between the appellant and the respondent were re-
ferred to arbitration. After conclusion of the proceedings, the Umpire filed 
the award before the court. The court directed the counsel for the parties 
to be informed. The counsel for the parties noted this order. Thereafter, the 
award was made rule of the court. 
Being arrived, the respondent filed a revision before the High Court, 
which was allowed on the ground that no notice under Section 14(2) of the 
Arbitration Act, 1940 was served on the respondent. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Itis clear that notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration 
Act, 1940 need not be in writing and th a tit can also be oral. What is essential 
is that there must be service of notice or intimation or communication of the 
filing of the award to the parties, mode of service of such notice being imma-
terial. But such information, communication and knowledge must be by or 
pursuant to order of the court. However, after filing of an award by the 
arbitrator or the Umpire in the court, if it merely records the presence of the 
parties or their counsel but does not indicate that notice of filing of the 
582 
/ 
j.-
11' 
EAST INDIA HOTELS LID. v. AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUIHORITY [PHUKAN, l.] 583 
A 
award be given to the parties, no service of notice can be attributed from the 
A 
-~ 
fact, as notice must be referable to an act of the court. [586-C-E] 
Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashelli v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashell~ 
[1962] 5. SCC 400 and Secretary to Govt. of Kamataka v. V. Harishbabu, 
(1996] 5 sec 400, relied on. 
B 
B 
2. The essential requirement of section 14(2) ofthe Act was duly com· 
plied with inasmuch as intimation of tiling the award to the parties was 
communicated. As notice to the counsel is notice to the party, the order 
of the court together with the endorsement of the advocate on the 
' 
c 
proceeding sheet would amount to a proper and valid service of notice c 
under Section 14(2) of the Act. The order of th( court, which was noted by 
• 
the counsel for the parties, would amount to a valid notice under Section 
·,. 
14(2). [587-G-H; 588-A] 
"-"1-
3. The stage at which notice is required to be given by the court 
D 
under Section 14(2) of the Act is after 'filing of the award' and the notice 
D· 
pertains to the fact of 'filing of the award' in Court. It is the duty of the 
: 
Arbitrator/Umpire to file deposition, documents, etc. along with the award. 
If only award is filed and other documents are not filed, the Court may 
issue notice under Section 14(2) after the award is filed. It need not post-
pone issuing of notice till all the documents are filed. A notice issued after 
"( 
E 
filing of the award but before filing of other documents is a valid notice 
E 
under Section 14(2) of the Act and no fresh notice need be issued after 
tiling of other documents by Arbitrator/Umpire. [588-C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2238-39 of 
2001. 
F 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.9917.9.99 of the Allahabad 
,. 
High Court in C.R. No. 106 of 1999. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, R.M. Aggarwal, V.K. Rao, Piyush Sharma and Ms. 
Madho Sikri for the Appellant. 
G 
G 
Rakesh Dwivedi and Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
............. 
PHUKAN, J. Leave is granted. 
H 
In these appeals by special leave, appellant has assailed the judgment 
H 
A 
B 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
dated 1.10.1999 of the High Court of Allahabad passed in Civil Revision 
No.106 of 199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.