9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (3) TMI 741 - SC - Companies LawWhether the arbitral award is adverse to Department s interest? Whether the arbitral award deserves challenge without proper assistance of the Departmental Head? Held that - The service of arbitral award on the General Manager by way of receipt in his inwards office cannot be taken to be sufficient notice so as to activate the Department to take appropriate steps in respect of and in regard to the award passed by the arbitrators to constitute starting point of limitation for the purposes of Section 34(3) of the Act. The service of notice on the Chief Engineer on 19.3.2001 would be the starting point of limitation to challenge the award in the Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also the Division Bench have erred in holding the application under Section 34 filed on behalf of the appellant as having been filed beyond a period of 3 months and 30 days within the meaning of sub-Section (3) of Section 34. There was a delay of 27 days only and not of 34 days as held by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case the delay in filing the application deserves to be condoned and the application under sub-Section (1) of Section 34 of the Act filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be heard and decided on merits. The appeal is allowed. The application under Section 34(1) filed on behalf of the appellant shall stand restored in the High Court to be heard and decided in accordance with law by the learned Single Judge.
Issues:
Determining the effective date of delivery and receipt of an arbitral award for calculating the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Analysis: The case involved a dispute arising from a contract between the Southern Railway and a contractor regarding gauge conversion and bridge construction. The arbitral tribunal gave its award on 10/11.03.2001, which was delivered to the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway on 12.3.2001. The Chief Engineer received the copy of the award on 19.3.2001. The Chief Engineer filed an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, seeking condonation of a 27-day delay. However, the respondent argued that the award was delivered on 12.3.2001, resulting in a 34-day delay beyond the limitation period. The High Court rejected the application as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Division Bench. The central issue in the appeal was to determine the date from which the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Act should be calculated. The interpretation of terms like "party" and "party making the application" in the context of a large organization like the Railways was crucial. The Court highlighted the role of the Departmental Head in understanding and challenging arbitral awards, emphasizing that the delivery and receipt of the award by the appropriate party trigger various limitation periods for further legal actions. The Court emphasized that in organizations like Railways, the person directly involved in the proceedings, such as the Departmental Head, should receive the arbitral award to initiate the limitation period for challenging the award. In this case, the Chief Engineer, representing the Union of India in the arbitration, was deemed the appropriate party to receive the award, not the General Manager. The impersonal approach of government departments necessitates that decisions are based on proper receipt of documents by relevant officials before further actions are taken. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, stating that the application under Section 34(1) deserved to be heard on merits as the delay in filing was only 27 days, not 34 days as held by the High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of proper receipt of the arbitral award by the concerned party to initiate the limitation period for legal actions under the Act.
|
