INDIAN RAYON CORPN. LTD. versus RAUNAQ & COMPANY PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 04-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN RAYON CORPN. LTD. 
v. 
RAUNAQ & COMPANY PVT. LTD. 
AUGUST 4, 1988 
A 
[SABYASACHJ MUKHARJI AND L.M .. SHARMA, lJ.] 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940: ss. 14 & 30: Award-Application for set-
ting aside of-Time fof-30 days from service of notice of filinK of 
award by Court-Statutory requirement-Filing of award in proper 
Court and intimation thereof by Court or its office-Notice need not be 
in writing-Can be communicated in any form. 
C 
Limitation Act, 1963: Article 119(b )-Award-Application for 
setting aside of-Time for-30 days from service of notice of filing of 
award by Court or its office. 
Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 enjoini the arbitrator 
I). 
or the umpire to give notice to the parties of filing of the award. Under 
cl111ise (b) of Article 119 of the Liniitation Act, 1963, the time for 
making an application for setting aside an award or getting an award 
remitted for reconsideration is thirty days from the date of service of 
the notice of the filing of the award. 
The award was filed in the court on 4th February, 1977. The 
respondent affirmed.an affidavit on 29th November, 1977 to that effect 
and prayed that a notice be issued and suyed on the appellant. There-
after a Master's Summons was taken out by the respondent on 10th 
· January, 1978 using the said affidavit as the ground for the prayers. On 
E 
4th. February, 1978 .the appellant filed an affidavit stating that the 
F 
award had been wrongly filed in the High Court and it should be taken 
off the tile. On 3rd May, 1978 an order was passed as prayed in the 
affidavit and the Master's Summons, and on July 30, 1981 a notice 
under s. 14(2) of the Act was served on the appellant. 
The appellant applied for certifi¢ copy of the award on 18th 
G 
August, 1981 and received the same on 1st September, 1981. It madean 
application under s. 30 of the Act on 8th September, 1981 for setting 
aside of the award. The High Court held that the notice was served 
prior to.30th July, 1981 !Ind as such the application was barred by lapse 
of time. 
H 
231 
A 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: In order to be effective both for the purpose of the judg-
ment in terms of an award and for setting aside the award, the award 
must be filed in the proper court. There must he service of notice or 
intimation or communication of the filing of the said award by the court 
a to the parties. If all these factors are established or are present, the 
mode of service of the notice would be irrelevant. It need not necessarily 
be in writing. If the substance is clear the form of the notice is irrelevant 
but the notice of award having been filed in the court, is necessary. The 
filing in the court is necessary and the intiniation thereof by the Re-
gistry of the court to the parties concerned is essential. Beyond this 
t 
there is no statutory requirement of any technical nature under s. 14(2) 
' 
of the Arbitration Act. [2340] 
It is upon the date of service of such notice that the period of 
limitation begins and as at present under clause (b) of Art. 119 of the 
Limitation Act, 1963 the limitation expires on the expiry of the thirty 
D days of the service of that notice for an application for setting aside of 
~ 
the award. [236F] 
In the instant case, on 4th February, 1978 an affidavit had been 
filed in the High Court, stating on behalf of the appellant that the award 
had been wrongly filed in that Court. The appellant had, therefore, 
E 
acknowledged that it had notice of the said filing communicated to it by 
the Court. The notice can thus be attributed to have been served on the 
appellant either on 3rd or 4th February, 1978, prior to 30th July, 1981. 
If that is the position then the application for setting aside of the award 
was clearly barred by lapse of time· •. [234C, 236B-H, 237AJ 
, 
IF 
Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna 
Ningashetti & Ors., [1962] 2 SCR 551 and Dewan Singh v. Champat 
Singh & Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 903 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2746 
of'1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated-25.8.1987' of the Calcutta 
High Court in Appeal from Original Order No., 158 of f982. 
D. Bhandari for the Appellant. 
J:I /, 
S.K. Dholakia and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent. 
INDIAN RAYON v. RAUNAQ & CO. [MUKHARJI, rJ, 
233 
The-Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted. The· ap-
peal is disposed o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.