1992 (12) TMI 215 - SC - Companies Law

When did the petition respondent get notice of the making of the award from the arbitrator? Whether on the findings arrived at by the court below, the application itself is barred by limitation? Held that - High Court has rightly held that the application made by the appellant was an application for directing the arbitrator to file the award in Court so that such award is made a rule of Court. In this case, there was no express authority given by the arbitrator to the applicant to file the award to make it a rule of Court although a signed copy of the award was sent to the applicant. The forwarding letter clearly indicates that the award was sent for information. The High Court has given very cogent reasons for not accepting the case of the appellant that he had received a signed copy of the award and the forwarding letter some time in May, 1965 and we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The applicant has not produced the registered cover received by him which would have established the actual date of the receipt of the postal cover by the applicant convincingly. We are also not inclined to hold that the delay in presenting the application deserves to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant has taken a very bold stand that he had received the signed copy of the award only in May, 1965 and only within three weeks of such receipt, he had filed the application. On the face of such statement, the plea of ignorance of the change in the Limitation Act need not be considered and accepted. As the case sought to be made out by the appellant that he had received the signed copy of the award only in May, 1965 has not been accepted, and we may add, very rightly by the Court, the question of condonation of delay could not and did not arise. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the arbitration award.
2. Bar of limitation for making the arbitration award a Rule of Court.
3. Authority to file the arbitration award in court.
4. Condonation of delay in presenting the application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Arbitration Award:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the arbitration award was valid and there was no misconduct by the arbitrator. The High Court found that the postal receipt and acknowledgment receipt of the postal cover by the appellant could not be found with the record, but the evidence of the arbitrator and his stenographer was reliable. The High Court concluded that the award was sent under a registered cover on February 27, 1965, and received by the appellant by the first week of March 1965.

2. Bar of Limitation for Making the Arbitration Award a Rule of Court:
The appellant's application to make the award a Rule of Court was challenged on the ground of limitation. The High Court held that the application was governed by Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of thirty days for filing such an application. The High Court did not accept the appellant's contention that the application was made under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and governed by the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The High Court also rejected the appellant's plea for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the appellant had taken a firm stand that he filed the application within three weeks of receiving the award.

3. Authority to File the Arbitration Award in Court:
The appellant argued that he had the authority to file the award in court under the arbitrator's implied authority. However, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kumbha Mauji v. Dominion of India, which held that mere handing over a signed copy of the award to a party does not imply authority to file the award in court. The High Court found no express or implied authority from the arbitrator to the appellant to file the award and held that the forwarding letter indicated that the award was sent only for information.

4. Condonation of Delay in Presenting the Application:
The appellant's plea for condonation of delay was rejected by the High Court. The High Court noted that the appellant did not produce the registered cover, which would have established the actual date of receipt of the award. The High Court found that the appellant's claim of receiving the award in May 1965 was untrue and that the award was received by the first week of March 1965. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning and found no reason to condone the delay, emphasizing that the appellant's false stand on the receipt of the award should not be encouraged.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the application to make the arbitration award a Rule of Court was barred by limitation. The Court held that the appellant had no authority to file the award, and the delay in presenting the application could not be condoned. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →