9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration before the completion of the period of contract namely with effect from 2nd August, 1960. In terms of arbitration clause in the argument for reference of the dispute arising out of the contract, an arbitrator was initially appointed by the General Manager, Eastern Railway. There was dispute about such appointment. Ultimately, the High Court of Patna, appointed Shri J.C. Mehta Deputy General Manager, Eastern Railway as the sole arbitrator by consent of the parties, and such arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties, made an award in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 82,100. Such award was made on 26th February, 1965. The arbitrator sent carbon copies of the award signed by him to both the parties. So far as the appellant is concerned, the arbitrator forwarded the signed copy of the award to the appellant alongwith a forwarding letter dated 20th February, 1965, indicating therein that he had signed and published the award on 26th February, 1965, and the same was being sent for the information of the appellant. There is a dispute as regards the date when the said copy of the arbitration award and the forwarding letter dated 26th February, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter should reach the addressee (the appellant) in time, it should be held that such signed copy of the award and the forwarding letter must have reached by first week of March, 1965. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge, however held that the case of the applicant, Shri Singh, was that he had filed the award in the Court under the authority of the Arbitrator. Although the Arbitrator in his evidence had stated that he had not given any authority to the applicant for filing the award in Court, but as he had sent the signed copy of the award to the applicant for appropriate action, it should be held that although no written authority was given by the arbitrator, an implied authority of the arbitrator was there. The learned Subordinate Judge further held that the signed copy of the award filed by the applicant should be treated as an original award and as such the prayer made by the applicant for calling for the award from the arbitrator was simply redundant and superfluous. The court was competent to pass appropriate order on the basis of the signed copy of the award since filed by the applicant. In such circumstances, the provisions of Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act was not at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect that he had received the acknowledgment receipt of the registered letter from the applicant within ten days from the date of dispatch and he had handed over the same to the arbitrator. The High Court was of the view that the evidence of posting of the award and the deposition of the stenographer that he had received the acknowledgment receipt got corroboration from the documentary evidence and also from the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court was of the view that the evidences of the arbitrator and the stenographer were more reliable than the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant. The High Court also drew adverse inference against the applicant for not producing the registered cover which admittedly the applicant received from the arbitrator. Considering the fact that at the relevant time there was no disturbance in Calcutta during the period when the registered cover was addressed to the applicant, the High Court was of the view that it should be presumed that the said registered cover had reached by the first week of March, 1965. The High Court referred to a decision of this Court made in the case of Kumbha Mauji v. Dominion of India , where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such service. When admittedly such objection had not been filed within thirty days, such objection must be held to be time barred and the application of the applicant should have been accepted by the court without considering any of the objections of the opposite party. The High Court rejected such contention. The High Court held that service of a copy of the application on a counsel of the opposite party who had appeared in an earlier proceeding under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act did not amount to service of notice of filing the award as contemplated by the Arbitration Act and Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act. The High Court held that the award was actually filed in Court on June 12, 1965 by the Arbitrator and on June 20, 1965 the court directed that the opposite party should be informed about the filing of the award and objection petition was filed within thirty days from the date of such direction. Accordingly, there was no occasion to hold that the objection petition was itself barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, the High Court allowed this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the application made by the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inated to his serious loss and prejudice. He has also submitted that the original applicant has died and it will cause serious hardship to the heirs of the original applicant to refund the awarded sum since received by the applicant. Mr. Ranjit Kumar has also contended that it is an admitted case of the parties that the carbon copy of the signed award had been sent to the applicant and such copy had been filed by the applicant to make the award a rule of court. Although the applicant in his application has stated that the direction should be given to the arbitrator to produce the award in Court, such statement, in the facts of the case, should not have weighed with the court because the original award itself had been filed by the applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances, the provision of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act was not attracted and the case being governed by Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, the limitation for presenting the application for making the award filed by the applicant a rule of court was not referable to Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act but such case was squarely governed by Article 137. Mr. Ranjit Kumar has further submitted that even if such contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Accordingly, the decision of this Court made in Kumbha Mauji's case (supra) is applicable. The High Court has given very cogent reasons which, we have indicated in some details, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
