FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS versus E. KUTTAPPAN

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 1028 · Decided: 21-06-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
\ 
·1 
-, - \,;, 
\ 
< 
I. 
,-.-
\". 
I\ > 
\. 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS .. 
\ 
... v. 
. " 
... 
E. KUTIAPPAN 
JUNE 21, 1993 
[A.M,AHMADI AND MA.DAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act. 1940 : 
-··- S.14-Award~lirnitation for filing objection-Held. period of limitation 
fo.rjiling'objection begins from the date of co1in·s accepting placement of award 
c be,fore it so far as party placing award before coim is concerned. 
· 
' I 
The respondent r.Jed two suits against the appellants under s: 20 or the 
Arbitratio;. Act, 1940 for appoinhnent of an arbitrator: The arbiirator W.s . 
......,: 
appointed ~ho made awards. On respondent's reqU.Cst the. Arhitra~r.-for:" 
· . warded the awards to forin.er'scounsel who in turn riled the same i~ Coul-tOn · 
D . 25.10.1988 directed issuance of notice to counsel for the parlic~ for 7.11.i988 •. 
and accordbigly intimated the appell;nts. The court on.3.li.1988 directed 
issuance ofooticetocounscl for the parties for7.11.1988. The respondcntfded · 
objections under's. 14 (2) of the Act on S.12.1988 computing the period of". 
E 
limitation Crom 7 .11.1988. Appellants' plea orlimitation against respondent's-
L-
objections was rejected by. the trial court. The revisions fded by the ap(iell~nts 
. were disinissed by the High Court. The appellants r.Jed the appeals by special 
leave.· 
-
- -
The appell~n~ cont~nded that though under s.14(2) of the A~t-~o)ice of 
r.Jing orthe award was required to be sent by the Court, with the placing of 
F · the a·ward before_ the court and court's· accepting i~ pla<::ement in~ if on 
25.10.1988 the factual filing of the award had been made ;and sequally notice 
.. -i' 
to the respondent through his. c~unscl, and the subsequent order dated . 
3:11.1988 directing notice for 7.11.1988 was of no consequence. 
------
. 
-
. 
Allowing the apPe:ils, and setting aside the order~ orthe High Court arid 
G . the trial Court, this Court 
. 
. 
. . . 
HELD : 1.1. The period or limitation for the purposes ot fding the 
~bjection, in so far as the respobdent l\'a.S Con~erned, ~d begun oit October -: 
· ~ 
25,1988 (i.e. the date of placing the award before the cou·rt by respondent's 
H c?un.Sel) and, thCrefore, the objecti.ons ~lied by t~e respondent on.Decem~r--_-~ 
1028 
• 
~· 
'I 
~l F. "·" ;, 
FOODCORPNv:E:,KOTTAP'PANl[PlJ'NCHHl.J] 
1029 
6, 1988 were barred by time, those having been fil~d beyond the prescribed 
A 
period of thirty days. 
·bf'.!i/ 
1.2. The mute language inherent in the action of the court in accepting 
the placement of the award into it on 25.10.1988 did convey to the party 
placing the award before it, th~ factum of the award being filed in court. The 
mere fact that at a subsequent state, the court issued notice to the parties 
informing them of the ftling of the award in court for the purpose of anyone 
to object to the award being made the rule of the court is an act of the court 
which cannot in law prejudiCe the rights of the parties 
Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Raunag and Company Pvt. Ltd.;.[1988] 4 
SCC 31 &Nilkantlza SlzidramappaNmgaslzetti v. Kashinatlz Somanna Ningashetti 
and otlzers:£1962] 2 SCR 551,_relied on. 
· Hansanal/i Abdallai Malabafi v. Shanti/al Bhaidas Marfatia and other.:AIR 
[1962] Gu,iarat 317 & The State ofBihar and others v. Liason and Contracts and 
anothelj AIR 1983 Patna 10~, referred to. 
2.1. The obligation of filing the award in court is a legal imperative on 
the Arbitrator. The agency of the party or its lawyer employed by the 
B 
c 
D 
· Arbitrator for the purpose normally .need be specific but can otherwise be 
deducted, inferred or implied from the facts and circumstances of a given .E 
case. It needs, however, shedding the impression that when a lawyer files the 
award in court when given to him by the Arbitrator his implied authority to 
do so, shall not be presumed to exist. 
· 
2.2. In the instant case,. it was the respondent who by his letter had 
requested the Arbitrator to send to his lawyer the. award for ftling it into court 
and to whom the Arbitrator obliged on such request. When the ArbitratQr 
chose to accede to the request of the respondent in specific terms, he by 
necessary implication authorised the respondent's counsel to ftle the award 
and the connected papers in court on his behalf. 
J(umb Mawji v. Union of lndiao[I935] SCR 878, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals N9s. 3139-40 of. 
1993. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order. dated 4.1.90 of the Ke
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.