LexNILKANTHA SHIDRAMAPPA NINGASHETTI versus KASHINATH SOMANNA NINGASHETTI AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 551 NILKANTHA SHIDRAMAPPA NINGASHETTI v KASHINATH SOMANNA NINGASHETTI AND OTHERS. (B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and ,J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Arbitration-Award filed in court-Expression "give notice", meaning of-If must be given in writing-Period of limitation to file objections from when to run-Objection to set aside award filed beyond time-Court files the award-If amounts to refusal to set aside the award-Indian Limitation Act, r908 (IX of 1908), art. r58-Arbitrat1on Act, r940 (10 of 1940), ss. 14(2), 39(r)(V I). In a partition suit the Arbitrator filed his award in the court and the judge adjourned the case for "the parties' say to the arbitrator's report." No notice in writing was given to the parties by the court of the filing of the award. Objection to the award was filed by the appellant beyond the period of limitation. The court ordered the award to be filed and decree to be drawn up in terms of the award as the objection filed was beyond the period of limitation. The appellant's case was that the period of limitation as under art. 158 of the Limitation Act, for an application to set aside the award, would run against him only from the date of service of the notice in writing of the filing of the award and as no notice in writing was issued by the Court to the appellant the time never began to run against him. The appellant also contended that as the court had refused to set aside the award the appeal was maintainable under s. 39(r)(VI) of the Arbitra- tion Act. Held, that the communication by the court to the parties or their counsel of the information that an award had been filed was sufficient compliance1with the requirements of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the Arbitration Act, with respect to the giving of the notice to the parties concerned, about the filing of the award. Notice does not necessarily mean "communication in writing". The expression "give notice" in sub-s.(2) of s. 14 of the Arbitra- tion Act simply means giving intimation of the filing of the Award. Such intimation need not be given in writing and could be communicated orally. That would amount to service of notice \vhen no particular mode of service \Vas prescribed. Held, further that where there was no objection before the court praying for setting aside the award, no question of refus- ing to set it aside could arise, and no appeal therefore was maintainable under s. 39(r)(Vl) of the Arbitration Act. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1958. r96x April 28. z96z Nilkanlha Shidramappa Ningashetli v. Kashinoth Soma11na l\'ingashetti R11gliubflt' Dayal ]. 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 7, 1954 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal from Order No. 63of1950. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for ap- pellant. W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respon- dents Nos. I and 2. S. T. Desai and M. S. K. Sastri, for respondents Nos. 4 to 7. 1961. April 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This is an appeal on certifi- cate under Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution, granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A suit for partition was filed against defendants I to IO and 12, members of a joint family. Defendant no. 1 was father of the appellant, who was then a minor, defendant no. 12. Defendant no. II was an outsider, he being a partner in the partnership shop of the family. Parties other than defendant no. 11 referred the matters in difference to an arbitrator. The arbitrator filed the award in Court on February 18, 1948. On February 21, 1948, the Civil Judge adjourned the matter "for parties' say to the arbitra- tor's report", to March 22, 1948. On March 16, 1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant no. 1 praying that certain papers and documents be called for from the arbitrator. On March 22, 1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant no. I praying for 15 days' time for going through the papers and documents which he had asked the arbi- trator to send to the Court and to intimate his say regarding the arbitrator's award. The Court granted the request. Defendant no. I filed his say about the arbitrator's report on April 2, 1948. He withdrew his contentions on March 31, 1949. It is to be noted that neither the objections filed on April 2, nor the other applications, purported t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.