Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2001 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (3) TMI 1067 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of notice requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
2. Validity of notice given to parties regarding the filing of the award.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for notice under the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of notice requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 14
The main contention revolved around the interpretation of the notice requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant argued that notice need not be in writing and that communication of the filing of the award must be issued and communicated by the court to the parties. It was emphasized that notice to the counsel representing the party would suffice as per Rule 5 of Order III C.P.C. On the other hand, the respondent argued that notice should only be issued after the award, along with depositions and connected documents, are filed by the Arbitrator/Umpire. The court emphasized that notice need not be in writing and can be oral, as long as there is communication of the filing of the award to the parties by or pursuant to the court's order.

Issue 2: Validity of notice given to parties
The court referred to previous judgments to support the view that notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 need not be in writing and may be oral. The court highlighted that the communication of the information that an award has been filed is sufficient compliance with the notice requirement. In this case, the Trial Court recorded the filing of the award by the Umpire and directed the counsel for the parties to be informed, which was duly noted. The court held that this communication amounted to a valid notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14, as notice to the counsel is considered notice to the party.

Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements
The court further clarified that the notice requirement pertains to the filing of the award in court, and notice should be issued after the award is filed, even if other documents are not filed simultaneously. The court rejected the respondent's argument that notice should only be issued after all documents are filed, emphasizing that a notice issued after the award but before other documents are filed is valid. The court also dismissed the relevance of certain Arbitration Rules cited by the respondent, stating they were not pertinent to the notice issuance under sub-section (2) of Section 14.

In conclusion, the court found merit in the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, affirmed the order making the award a rule of the court, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates