M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. versus M/S C.K. AHUJA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 14-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Disposed off
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)

\ 
M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. 
A 
v. 
M/S C.K. AHUJA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1995 
[P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
Arbitation Act 194(}-Ss. 14(2), 17 and 29-Award-Delay in filing ob-
jection~orum for dealing with award where arbitrator appointed by 
Supreme Court-Held, objection as to award, including objection as to forum, 
should be dismissed being filed long after period of iimitation, as also on C 
merits-Held further, where arbitrator appointed by Supreme Court and no 
further directions given, forum for taking further action is Supreme 
-.( 
Court-Limitation. 
This Court by order dated Novemeber 12, 1991 referred the disputes 
and differences to arbitration by consent of parties. The award of the D 
arbitrator made on February 14 1994 was filed before this Court. The 
Registry gave notice on April 29, 1994 of filing of the award to counsel for 
both parties. The respondents made an application under the Arbitration 
Act 1940 that the award· be made rule of the court and interest at the rate 
of 24% be awarded to them from the date of filing of the award. When the E 
interlocutory applications came up for hearing, the appellant prayed for 
fresh notice which was issued without prejudice to the contentions of the 
respondents that the period for filing objections were already barred by 
limitation. Even thereafter, while inspection of the award was taken on 
October 3, 1994, the objections to the award w~re filed on November 20, 
1994, i.e. not within 30 days from such inspection. The appellant, besides F 
contending that the award was not filed and signed in the proper manner 
and that they had not been supplied a copy as is required, further sub-
mitted that the award was not filed in the proper court. Accordingly, it was 
urged that there was no question of limitation running from the date of 
filing the award~ 
G 
Disposing of the applications, this Court 
HELD : 1. Where the arbitrator was appointed by this Court by 
consent of parties and no further directions were given in the said order 
which would indicate that this Court bad not divested itself of its jurisdic- H 
65 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A tion to deal with the award or matters arising out of the award, the forum 
for taking further action is this Court. In· the absence of any other court 
having been invested with such jurisdiction, the only conclusion that is 
possible is that further orders must be passed only by the court that 
passed the order, namely, the Supreme Court. [69-G-H] 
B 
State of M.P. v; Mis Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd., [1972) 1 SCC 702, 
followed. 
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt. Ltd., [1993) 1 
sec 205, distinguished. 
C 
Food Corporation of India v. E. Kuttappan, JT (1993) 4 SC 90; 
Nilkantha Shidramappa Nindushetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti, 
[1962) 3 SCR 551 and Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Raunaq and Co. 
Pvt. Ltd., [1988) 4 SCC 31, referred to. 
2. In any event, even if it is assumed that the award should be filed 
D in other court when the notice oniling of the award was given by the 
Registry of this Court, objection as to the award including objection as to 
· forum ought to have been raised before this Court and it will not be open 
to the parties to altogether ignore the notice of filing the award given by 
the Registry. Accordingly, such objection should not be permitted to be 
E raised at this stage as the objection to the award has been filed long after 
the period of limitation. Even on merits, no interference is called for 
against the award. [70·C·D] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:. Interlocutory Application 
No. 9 to 12 of 1994. 
IN 
Civil Appeal Nos. 3882-85 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.5.89 of the Patna High Court 
G in C.R. Nos. 199-202of1989 (R). 
G.L. Sanghi and G.S. Chatterjee for the Appellant. 
M.C. Bhandare and R.P. Gupta for the Respondents . 
. ,_ 
Ji 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
) 
-
-( 
JJHARATCOKING COAL LTD. \1. C.K. AHUJA [G.N. RAY, J.] 
67 
G.N. RAY, J. In Civil Appeal Nos. 3882-85 of 1990 and SLP (Civil). A· 
Nos. 10832-33 of 1989 this court by order ·dated November 18, 1991, 
referred the disputes and differences in the said Civil Appeals and leave 
applications to arbitration by consent of parties. The order passed on 
November 18, 1991 is to the following effect :-
"The disputes and differences referred to in the aforesaid B 
matter are by consent referred to the arbitration of Mr. J.P. 
Thakur, Dy.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.