UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S. NEELAM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 10-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 280 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
M/S. NEELAM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION 
COMPANY 
(Civil Appeal No. 2283 of 2010) 
MARCH 10, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940 - ss. 14(2), 17, 29, 30 and 33 -
C Petition for making the Arbitration Award a Rule of Court -
Objections ulss. 30 and 33 to set aside the Award - Rejection 
of objection since it was filed prior to filing of the Award - On 
appeal, held: Filing objection against something which did not 
exist on the date when objection was filed cannot be accepted 
o and should be rejected - On . facts, when appellants filed 
objections, the Awardi had not been received in court and 
notice was issued.to Ar"Qitrator'to fill:! original Award - There 
was no occasion for s,uch objection to be filed in -terms of 
Article 119 of the Limitation Act,· 1963 - Thus, objections were 
E filed prematurely even prior to the filing of the Award and 
could not be treated as a valid objection - Order of courts 
below upheld - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 119. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the courts below were justified in 
F rejecting the objections filed by the appellant ulss. 30 and 
33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the Award 
since the objection had been filed prior to filing of the 
Award. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
·HELD: 1.1. In view of Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 
1963, the period of limitation for filing an application 
commences only after the date of service of the notice 
280 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. NEELAM ENGINEERING 281 
& CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 
of the making of the Award. The raison d'etre for filing 
A 
objection u/ss. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is 
the Award which has to be filed in Court either by the 
Arbitrator or at the'.instance of pny of the parties requiring 
the Arbitrator to do so. Even the Court may direct the 
Arbitrator to file his Award on the application made by any 
B 
of the parties thereto. Filin'g an objection against 
something which did not exist on the date when the 
objection was filed is unacceptable and must be rejected. 
The objections filed u/ss. 30 and 33 of the Act by the 
appellants, therefore, have been rightly held to be pre-
c 
mature and such objection could not be treated as a valid 
objection filed after the filing of the Award, u/ss. 30 and 
33 of the Act in view of the provisions of Article 119 of 
th~ Limitation Act, 1963. While the original Award was filed 
in 'court on 27th May, 1998, the objections filed u/ss. 30 
0 
and 33 of the Act, for setting aside the Award was filed 
on 3rd January, 1998. Therefore, there was no occasion 
for such an objection to be filed in terms of Article 119 of 
the Limitation Act, 1963. [Paras 16] [289-C-F] 
1.2. The objection filed by the appellant u/ss. 30 and 
E 
33 of the Act, for setting 3Side the Award on 3rd January, 
1998, was on account of the fact that the respondent had 
filed a petition in the Civil Court on 27th February, 1996, 
for making the Award a Rule of Court. At the time when 
the 'objection was filed, it was noted on 18th February, 
F 
1998, that the Award had not been received in Court and 
notice was issued to the Arbitrator to file the original 
Award in pursuance whereof the original Award was filed 
in Court on 27th May, 1998. [Para 17] [289-G-H; 290-A] 
East India Hotels Ltd. vs. Agra Development Authority 
(2001) 4 SCC 175; Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti vs. 
Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti and Ors. (1962) 2 SCR 551; 
Secretary to Government of Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. 
Harishbabu (1996) 5 SCC 400; Ratanji Virpal and Co. vs. 
Dhiraj/al Manila/ AIR 1942 Born. 101, referred to. 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2001) 4 sec 115 
Referred to. 
Para 11 
(1962) 2 SCR 551 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
(1996) 5 sec 400 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
AIR 1942 Bom. 101 
Referred to. 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2283 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.12.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil 
Revision No. 229 of 2005. 
Indira Jaising, ASG, Binu Tamta, Kiran Bhardwaj, Anil 
D Katiyar, D.S. Mahra for the Appellants. 
E 
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Gagan Deep Sharma, 
Ajay Pal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. An Agreement No.GE/CHD-61/88-89 was entered i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.