UNION OF INDIA versus TECCO TRICHY ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 16-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
TECCO TRICHY ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS 
MARCH 16, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : 
ss. 2(h), 31(5), 34(1) read with s.34(3) proviso-Limitation for filing 
application for setting aside the award-Delivery of copy of award to "party"- C 
"Party" making application for setting aside award-Arbitration proceedings 
between Railways and contractor-Copy of award delivered in office of General 
Manager, Railways-Later, copy of award delivered by arbitral tribunal to 
Chief Engineer concerned-Chief Engineer filing application for setting aside 
the award alongwith an application for condonation of delay-Application D · 
contested as being beyond the period of limitation from the date of receipt of 
copy of award in Office of General Manager-Held, in the context of State or 
a department of Government, more so, a large organization like Railways, 
"party" as referred to in s.2(h) read with s.31(5) and s.34(3) has to be 
construed to be a person directly connected with and involved in the 
proceedings and who is in control of the proceedings before the arbitrator-
E 
On facts, the Chief Engineer was representing the Union of India and notices 
of the proceedings were served on him-Subject matter of arbitration was 
related to his department-He was directly concerned with the arbitration-
Delivery of copy of award within the meaning of s. 31 (5) shall be deemed :o 
have taken place on the date Chief Engineer received copy of the award as F 
that date would be the starting point of limitation to challenge the award-
Thus calculated, the delay in filing application uls 34(1) deserves to be 
condoned-Judicial Notice. 
In a disputed claim arising out of a work contract between appellant-
Railways and respondent-contractor, the General Manager, Southern G 
Railways referred the matter to an arbitral tribunal, which gave its award, 
a copy of which was delivered in the office of the General Manager, 
Southern Railways on 12.3.2001. The Chief Engineer of the department 
concerned received the copy of the award from the arbitral tribunal on 
983 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A 19.3.2000, and presented an application on 10.7.2001 for setting aside the 
said award under s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 
alongwith an application for condo nation of 27 days delay calculated from 
19.3.2001, the date on which he received the copy of the award. The 
contractor contested the application for condonation of delay on the 
B ground that limitation was to be calculated from 12.3.2001, the date on 
which copy of the award was delivered in the office of the General 
Manager, Southern Railways, and thus calculated, there being 34 days' 
delay, the proviso appended to sub-s.(3) of s.34 of the Act did not permit 
any delay beyond 30 days' to be condoned by the Court. The single Judge 
of the High Court accepted the stand of the contractor. In appeal, the 
C Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision. Aggrieved, the 
Railways filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, it is to be seen as to what is the 
D meaning to be assigned to the term "party" and "party making the 
application" for setting the award in the context of the State or a 
department of the Government, more so, a large organization like the 
Railways. In such organizations "party" as rei'erred to in s.2 (h) read with 
s.34 (3) and sub-s. (5) ofs.31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 
has to be construed to be a person directly connected with and involved 
E in the proceedings and who is in control of the proce..:dings before the 
arbitrator. 1987-E; 988-D-El 
1.2. Court can take judicial notice of it that there are several 
arbitration proceeaings pending consideration concerning affairs of the 
F Railways before arbitration. The General Manager, with executive 
workload of entire Division cannot be expected to know all the niceties of 
the case pending before the arbitral tribunals or for that matter the 
arbitral award itself and to take a decision as to whether the arbitral 
award deserves challenge, without proper assistance of the departmental 
head who is directly concerned with the subject matter as well as arbitral 
G proceedings. (988-B-CI 
1.3. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-s.(5) of s.31 is not 
a matter of mere formality. It is a matter of substance. The delivery of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.