PARASRAMKA COMMERCIAL COMPANY versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 29-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

136 
PARASRAMKA COMMERCIAL COMPANY 
v. 
lil\rf>N OF INDIA 
August 29, 1969 
[M. HIDAYATU~'.AH, C.J. AND A, N. RAY, J.] 
Arhitratia11 Act (10 
1940), s. 14(1)-'Notice in wriling' of t11l-
111aki111: and signing of tire award-Copy of sig11ed award sen! to partici-
lf operutes as such notice. 
The disputes bet\\·cen the appellant and the rcsp·0ndent, arising out ol 
a contract bcl\-veen them. were referred to arbitration under the arbitrati~1n 
clause in the contract. The J\\'ard \\'as made and signed on April 26. 1950. 
The arbitrator did not send any notice of the making and signing of th..! 
[1\rard but sent a copy of the si~neO a\vard to the appellant. The appellant 
acl\no\vlcdged receipt of the copy by t\\'O letters daLt:P ?\Iay 5. 1950 anci 
~!av 16. 1950. 
On March 30. 1951, the appellant filed an application 
in the Subordinate Judge·s Court for passing a decree in 
terms of lhc 
a\l.:an..1. 
On the question whether the application \\·as out of time, because. 
under Art. 178 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. the application had 
to be filed within 90 days of the date of service of the notice of the n1aking 
of the award, 
HELD : Under s. 14(1) ·of the Arbitralion Act, 1940, when 
the 
arbitrators have given their av.;ard. they shall sign it and shall give noricc 
in \!'r;1i11g to the. parties of the making and signing the:·cof and of 
th-~ 
amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbirtation and the 
award. 
The notice need not be in the form of a separate letter. 
It is 
sufficient, if it is in writing and intimates clearlv that the a1.vard hns been 
made and signed. The noii-mention of the amoUnt of the fees ·and charges 
payable in respect of the arbitration and a1,1,·ard \viii not affect ~fie notice 
as it is not an essential part of it for the purpos·e of limitation. 
In the 
present case, s_ince the appellant had sufficient notice that the a1,1,·ard had 
heen made and signed \Vhen a copy of the a"·ard signed by the arbitrator 
\vas sent to the appellant, the application for passing a decree in terms of 
the award was out of time. 
(138 B, F-G; 139 A. C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2532 of 
1966. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and orcer dated 
August 8, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi 
G 
in Civil Revision No. 330-D of 1954. 
B. P. Mahesh1rari and S. M. Jain, for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ff 
Hidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal against a judgment and 
order of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi 
.' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PARASRAMKA co. v. UNION (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 
I 37 
(Single Judge) in a matter arising under the Aribtration Act. By 
an agreement dated April 28, 1948 the appellant company enter-
ed into a contract with the Chief Director of Purchase (Food) 
acting on behalf of the Government of India. It is not necessary 
to give the details of this contract, because the matter was referred 
to arbitration under an arbitration clause included in the agree-
ment between the parties. The award was made and signed on 
April 26, 1950. 
The Arbitrator awarded Rs. 17,080-2-9 with 
wsts in favour of the company. 
The Arbitrator, however, did 
not send a notice as such of the making and signing of the award 
but sent a copy of the award signed by him to the company. The 
company acknowledged the receipt of this copy by two letters 
which are dated May 5 and May 16, 1950. It appears that in the 
original which was retained in the office of the Arbitrator, it was 
stated that there was a covering letter giving notice of the making 
of the award, but the company denied that any such letter had 
been sent. However, nothing much turns on it as we sh3ll show 
presently. 
· 
After the copy of the award was received by the company, it 
filed an application under s. 14 (1) of the Arbitration Act in the 
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi on March 30, 1951 for 
making the award rule of the court. It may be mentioned that on 
July 3, 1951, the Arbitrator sent the original award to the court 
also. 
Before the Subordinate Judge objection was taken by the 
Union of India that the application of the company to the court 
was delayed since such an application under s. 14(1) of the Arbi-
tration Act under Art. 1'/8 of the Indian Limitation Act had to 
be made within 90 days of the receipt of the notice intimating that 
the aw

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.