PATEL MOT!BHAI NARANBHAI AND ANR. versus DINUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 09-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
PATEL MOT!BHAI NARANBHAI AND ANR. 
v. 
DINUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.] 
Arbitration Act. 1940 : Sections 14(2) and 17. 
Arbitration-Award-Filing of in Court-Neither party mnking applica-
tion for-Expiry of period of limitation-Arbitrator.filing award in Court after 
six years--Grant or decree by Court--Held not valid. 
Limitation Act, 1963 : 
Articles 119 and 167-Applicability of 
A 
B 
c 
In a property dispute between the parties, the arbitrator made his D 
Award on 26th February, 1986 and gave intimation of the Award to the 
parties. However, neither of the two parties made any application for filing 
of the Award in Court. After six years, the Arbitrator filed his Award in 
the Court and sought a decree in terms of the Award at the instance of 
one of the parties. The party himself also applied for a decree in terms of E 
Award. The Civil Judge allowed both the applications and made th_e 
Award Rule of Court. The appeal preferred against the decree passed by 
the Civil Judge was dismissed bx the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The order passed by the High Court and also the decree 
in terms of the Award passed by the Civil Judge is set aside. [244-E] 
2. Under sub-section (2) of Section 14, a duty is cast upon the 
arbitrator to file the award or cause the award to be filed in the court at 
F 
the request ·of the party to the arbitration agreement or if so directed by G 
the Court. There is no provision which requires the arbitrator to apply to 
the court for filing of the award and pass a decree in terms of the award. 
An application for filing the award in Court has to be made within thirty 
days from the date of service of the notice of making of the award under 
Article 119 of the limitation Act, 1963. Even if it is held that Article 119 H 
239 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
will apply only to an application made by a party and not by the 
arbitrator, Article 137 will come in the way of the arbitrator's making any 
application beyond the period of three years from the date of making of 
the award. [243-G-H; 244-A] 
B 
c 
3. In the instant case, the Arbitrator has not merely filed the Award 
in Court, he also made an application in the Court of Civil Judge under 
Section 14 of the Arbitration Act and engaged a lawyer to obtain orders 
as prayed. The actio.n of the Arbitrator is incomprehensible. It appears 
that he had decided to shed the mantle of an arbitrator and join force with 
a party in the dispute. [242-G; CJ 
4. A party to the dispute cannot be allowed to circumvent the Jaw 
with the help of the Arbitrator and obtain indirectly an order under 
Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, which they could not do directly. Law 
cannot be allowed to be circumvented in this fashion. The Court should 
have declined to entertain the application moved by the Arbitrator nearly 
D 
six years after making of the Award. Without the application of the 
Arbitrator, the application made by a party to the dispute under Section 
14(2) could not survive. The Court should not come to the aid of a party 
where there has been unwarrantable delay in seeking the statutory 
remedy. [244-D; B-C] 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1502 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.94 of the Gujarat High Court 
in C.R. A No. 1410 of 1994. 
P.H. Parekh, Ms. Suneeta Sharma and Bharat Zaveri for the Appellants. 
R.P. Bhatt, M.N. Shroff and Ms. Reema Bhandari for the Respondents . 
• 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. Leave granted. 
This case arises out of a property dispute between Motibhai Naranbhai 
Patel and Chandrakant Motibhai Patel, the appellants herein, and Pravinbhai 
Ishwarbhai Patel, Mabendrakumar Ishwarbhai Patel and Jayantikumar 
Ishwarbhai Patel, the respondents. 
H 
The dispute, by mutual consent was referred to arbitration. Dinubhai 
4 .. 
P.M. NARANBHAI v. D.M. PATEL [SEN, J.] 
241 
Mocibhai Patel, an Advocate was selected as Arbitralor by the parries. The 
dispucc was referred lo the Arbitrator on 21st May, 1985. The Arbitrator made 
his Award on 26th February, 1986 and gave inlimation of the Award to all the 
parties. Thereafter on 24.4.1986 Chandrakant Dave, an Adovcate wrote to the 
Arbitrator on behalf of the appellants : 
"You have recently given an award as an Arbitrator between my 
clients and the heirs of his deceased brother Shri Ishwarbhai Naranbha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.