UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MANAGER, M/S JAIN AND ASSOCIATES

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 06-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MANAGER, MIS JAIN AND ASSOCIATES 
FEBRUARY 6, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940: 
Section 17-Judgmen! and decree under-Order IX Rule 13 CPC-
Applicability of--A1mrd-Objectio11 to---Not filed within period of limitation- C 
Ex-pa rte decree passed and award made rule of court-Application/or setting 
aside such ex-parte decree not entertained 011 the ground that judgment and 
decree under Section 17 is not an ex-parte decree under 0. IX R.13 CPC-
Correctness of-Held: In arbitration proceedings there may not be a practice 
to describe parties as plaintiff or defendant-But that does not mean that 0. D 
IX R.13 CPC is not applicable to a case where judgment is pronounced under 
S.17-For a party objecting to an award such decree is ex-parte decree-
Hence, application for selling aside judgment and decree passed under S.17 
can be entertained-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 0. IX R.13. 
Sections 30 and 33-Application under Award-Objection to---Not E 
filed within period of limitation-Ex-parte decree passed under S.17 on the 
basis of award-Subsequently, objection application with prayer for 
condonation of delay filed-Entertainment of-Held: Such application can 
be entertained even after a decree is passed under S.17 provided sufficient 
cause is shown-limitation Act, 1963, Sections 5' and Art. J 19(a) Sch. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Proceedings "-Meaning of-In the context of Section 141 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
-- ~· 
"Pronounce judgment"-Meaning of-In the context of S.17 of the 
Arbitration Act, 1940. 
The arbitrator passed an award against the appellants and no objections 
under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were filed within the 
889 
F 
G 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] I S.C.R. 
A period of limitation prescribed under Article I I 9(b) of the Schedule to the 
Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court, therefore, made the award rule of the 
Court. 
The appellants filed an application for setting aside the award and for 
condo nation of delay in filing the application. The high Court rejected the 
B application for setting aside the decree solely on the ground that the judgment 
and decree passed in terms of Section 17 of the Act, where no objections 
were filed before pronouncing judgment and passing the decree, cannot be 
said to be an ex-parte decree within the meaning of Order IX Rule 13 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence this appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 leaves no doubt that 
in a proceeding where an application is filed for passing the decree on the 
basis of the award submitted by the arbitrator, the provisions of the Code of 
D Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable and there is no provision which excludes 
operation of Order IX. Similarly, in view of Section 141 CPC, the procedure 
prescribed in the Code is to be followed as far as it can be made applicable to 
all proceedings in the Court of civil jurisdiction. Hence, in the proceedings 
initiated for making the award rule of the Court, provisions ofCPC including 
Order IX Rule 13 would be applicable. [894-A-B] 
E 
2.1 Under Section 41 of the Act the provisions of CPC are made 
applicable to arbitration proceedings before the Court and to the appeals 
under the Act. In arbitration proceedings, there is no question of suit being 
filed as award is kndered for passing decree in terms of the award. Similarly, 
Section 141 CPC also contemplates proceedings other than suit in any court 
F of civil jurisdiction and provides that procedure provided in the Code in regard 
to the suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable. In such 
proceedings, there may not be a practice or procedure describing parties as 
plaintiff or defendant. Hence, in arbitration proceedings even if the suit is 
not filed, procedure provided in CPC is applicable and there is no reason to 
G hold that as no party is described as plaintiff or defendant, Order IX would 
not be applicable. [899-C-E] 
2.2. The provisions ofCPC are specifically made applicable and there 
is no reason to hold that Order IX Rule 13 would not be applicable in a case 
where judgment is pronounced under Section 17 of the Act in the absence of 
H objection application tendered by the party objecting to the award. For all 
... 
-
.....,. __ _ 
U.0.1. v. MANAGER, JAIN AND ASSOCIATES [SHAH, .I.] 
891 
·· purposes such decree is· ex-pa rte for the party

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