LexSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA versus V. HARISHBABU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA v. V. HARISHBABU JULY 9, 1996 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.J.] Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 14(2). Filing of award-In Cowt-Notice of-Held: Mandat01y-Notice need not be in w1iti11g, it can be oral also-What is essential is that notice or inti111ation or con1111unication of filing of the award n1ust be issued by the Cowt to the p01tics-Notice to the pleade1:' representing the pmties would be sufficient compliance with S. 14(2)-Where a pmty has knowledge aliwzde of filing of the award and seeks time to file objections, it would be sufficient se1vice of notice. Filing of award-In Cowt--By or on behalf of arbitratm~He/d : If award is filed by a p011y. Autho1ity of arbitrator to the concemed pmty to file the aivard 1nust be specifically jJleaded in the application ivhich accon111anies the award and positively proved. Limitation Act, 1963 : A1ticle I19(b ). Setting aside of award-Limitation for-Held commences from date of se1vicc of notice upon the p01ties by Cowt under S. 14(2) of Arbitration Act-Date of se1vice of notice is;ued by arbitrator under S. 14(1) of Arbitra- A B c D E tion Act or date of obtaining an e11dorsen1ent on the aivard by the arbitrator F from the pal:fy concemcd is in~levant for this purpose. The appellant entrusted the respondent with certain contract work. During execution of the contract some disputes arose between the parties, . which were referred to an arbitrator in terms of an arbitration agreement G entered into between the parties. The arbitrator made his award on 22.4.1993. On 23.4.1993 the respondent tiled a petition under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before Civil Court for making the award a rule of the Court. According to the respondent, a signed copy of the a\\-'ard was also tiled along with the petition. But there \\'HS no averment in the petition that the arbitrator had authorised the H 215 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A respondent to file the copy of the awar~ in the Court. Notice of the petition filed by the respondent was issued by the Court to the appellant and other respondents on 24.4.1993 returnable by 22.6.1993. However, let alone at- taching a copy of the award there was not even an indication therein that a copy of the award had also been filed with the petition. No objections B were invited by the Court in the said notice to the award as such. On 22.6.1993 the Additional Government Pleader (AGP) appeared for the appellant in response to the above notice. Since, respondent No. 3, the sole arbitrator to the petition, had not been served, the case was adjourned to 13.7.1993 without any further proceedings after recording the presence of the parties present before the Court. The arbitrator himself filed the C original award along with various documents in the Court on 24.6.1993, after securing an endorsement from the AGP to the effect "seen, subject to objections". The Court directed directed the award and the documents filed by the arbitrator to be taken on record. On 13.7.1993 a memo was filed on behalf of the respondent for final disposal of his petition filed under D Sections 14/17 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not filed any objections to the award within the prescribed period and, therefore, the award be made a rule of the Court. Notice of the said memo was issued to the appellant and the case was adjourned till 31.7.1993. On 31.7.1993, the trial court accepted the plea raised on behalf of the respondent in his memo that since the appellant had not filed any objections to the award E within a period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act read with the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, the award be made a rule of the court. A decree in terms of the award was directed to follow. The High Court after hearing submissions on behalf of the parties, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition observing that the AGP representing respon- F dents 1 and 2 before the courts below had taken notice of the filing of the award by the arbitrator on 24.6.1993 and as such it could not be accepted that the State had no 'knowledge' of filing of the award in court "prior to 13.7.93" and since the State had not filed its objections within 30 days, the trial court was justified. in making the award a rule of the court. Hence this appeal. G Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The period of limitati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.