LexKRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI (RANI) M/S S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 81 : 2025 INSC 24 Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/s S.R. Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2025) 03 January 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the time for filing an application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940 commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the existence of the award. Headnotes† Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.17, 14(2) – Award to be signed and filed – Judgment in terms of award – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 119(b) of the First Schedule – 30 days period for filing objections to the award – Start of limitation, when – Appellant filed application u/s.17 on 10.11.2022 for pronouncement of the judgment in terms of the award – Dismissed by Trial Court holding that the application was premature as it was filed before the expiry of the 30 days period for filing objections to the award, reckoned from 18.11.2022, when formal notice of the Award was said to have been received by the respondent – Order upheld by High Court – Correctness: Held: The date of receiving a copy of the award is not the requirement of Section 14(2), but merely awareness that it is available to the parties – Respondent had notice of filing of the award due to the order dated 21.09.2022, wherein the District Court directed the respondents to hand over the balance fee to the arbitrators, following which the award shall be furnished – Thus, respondent was fully aware of the making of the Award by 21.09.2022, for the law does not require a formal notice of the making of the Award, as against knowledge/notice of the Award – District Court and the High Court erred in holding that the limitation for filing objections was still running when the appellant filed the application under Section 17 on 10.11.2022 – The formal * Author 82 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports date of notice of filing of the award on the respondents, that is, 18.11.2022 holds no significance as they were made sufficiently aware of the award’s filing on 21.09.2022 itself – The court directing the respondents to clear the fees was a clear intimation about its filing – Limitation expired on 20.10.2022 – Thus, appellant’s application seeking pronouncement of judgment in terms of the award was valid and well beyond the period for filing objections to the award – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 18, 14, 2, 19, 20] Words and Phrases – ‘notice’; ‘service of notice’ – Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.14, 17 – Award to be signed and filed – Judgment in terms of award – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 119(b) of the First Schedule – 30 days period for filing objections to the award – Limitation to start running from when: Held: The limitation for filing objections to the award is 30 days, and is governed by Article 119(b) of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 – The trigger for the limitation to start running specified therein is the date of service of notice of the filing of the award – Further, Section 14(2) requires that the court of relevant jurisdiction should give notice to the concerned parties when an award is filed – From a plain reading of the provisions, it appears that the parties need to be notified of the filing of award – While Art.119(b) of the Limitation Act requires that there be a ‘service of notice’ for the limitation to start running, Section 14(2) merely states that court ‘give notice’ to the parties – The precise form of what constitutes as a ‘notice’ of filing the award is unspecified – However, interpreted reasonably, what must be required is that the parties come to know about the existence of the award so that any objections to it may be filed – What appears from the usage of the word ‘notice’ is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step. [Paras 14, 15] Case Law Cited Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti [1962] 2 SCR 551 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 75; Ch. Ramalinga Reddy v. Superintending Engineer [1994] Supp. 6 SCR 266 : (1999) 9 SCC 610; Food Corporation of India v. E. Kuttappan [1993] 3 SCR 1028 : (1993) 3 SCC 445; Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Raunaq and Co. (P) Ltd [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 231 : (1988) 4 SCC 31; Bharat Coking
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.