RAJ KUMAR DEY AND OTHERS versus TARAPADA DEY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 14-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
, RAJ KUMAR DEY AND OTHERS 
v, 
TARAPADA DEY AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 14'. 1987 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 11 and 14-Award affecting 
immovable property-Registration of-Period of limitation-What is--
Period during which judicial proceedings pending-Whether be 
excluded. 
Registration Act, 1908: Sections 23 and 25-Arbitrator's award-
Registration of-period of /imitation-What is. 
Limitation Act, 1963: Section 15-Period during which judicial 
proceedings pending-Whether to be excluded. 
An agreement was entered into by appellants Nos. 1 to 4 and 
E 
respondent No. 1 regarding partition of joint movable and immovable 
properties. A dispute arose relating to certain properties, which was 
referred to arbitration. The arbitrators made their award on November 
28, 1977, which was filed by them before the Sub-Judge on January 28, 
1978, pursuant to the application made by appellants Nos. 1 to 4 under 
s. 14 of the Act. 
F 
On December I, 1977, respondent No. 1 had filed an application 
under s. 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the Munsif, who passed 
an injunction order on July 26, 1978, for maintaining status quo till the 
disposal of the said application. On the application made by the 
G 
arbitrators on 14th August, 1978, the Sub-Judge ordered on September 
2, 1978, the returning back of the award to the arbitrators, to enable 
them to present the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar. The 
High Court in appeal set aside the above order holding that during the 
J_ 
subsistence of the interim injunction to maintain status quo, the 
arbitrators could not take back the award for presenting it for registra-
H 
lion, and ordered that the arbitrators' application be kept pending and 
118 
I' 
, 
y 
) 
1 
·~{ 
\ 
R .K.DEY v. TARAPADA DEY 
119 
heard when the injunction order was vacated. 
On December 20, 1982 the Munsif dismissed the case of the 
respondent No, land that interim injunction ipso fai;to.was·discharged. 
Thereafter, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application of the 
arbitrators for returning of the award, holding that limitation for 
registration of the award had already expired. The High Court, in appeal, 
directed the Subordinate Judge to return back the award, holding that 
it was the Registrar and not the Sub-Judge who could determine the 
question of limitation for the purpose of registration of the award. On 
November 24, 1983, the arbitrators got back the award and 'the next 
day presented it before the Sub-Registrar and the award was registered 
the same day. 
The High Court on a petition by respondent No. 1 challenging the 
registration sent back the award to the Sub-Registrar to re-consider the 
question of limitation. The Sub-Registrar found that the award was 
presented within time as the period during which the judicial proceed-
ings were pending, namely, 28th January, 1978 to 24th November, 
1983, should be excluded in view of s. 15 of the Limitation Act. Against 
the aforesaid decision, respondent No. 1 filed an application before the 
High Court which, by the impugned order, quashed the registration 
and held that the award had been presented for registration beyond 
time. 
In the appeal by special leave, the validity and propriety of the 
aforesaid order was challenged. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, this Court, 
HELD: Under the Registration Act, 1908, the limitation period 
for registration is four months from the date of execution and in cases 
where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months, such 
document could be accepted for registration, on payment of fine. The 
cumulative effect of sections 23 and 25 read together is that a total 
period of eight months is available for registration, if the conditions 
requisite are fulfilled. [122G; 123A-B] 
In the instant case, the award was made on November 28, 1977 
and before the expiry of four months, it was filed in the court pursuant 
to the order of the court. During the period from July 26, 1978 to 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
December 20 1982 there was subsisting injunction preventing the 
' 
' 
d 
. 
H 
arbitrators from taking any steps. Furthermore, as the awar was m 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] 1 S.C.R. 
A the custody of the court from January 28, 1978 till the return of the 
award to the arbitrators on November 24, 1983, the arbitrators or the 
parties could not have presented the award for its registration during 
that time. The award was presen

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