Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 856 (MP)

Nepa Limited v. Rana Timber Traders

2000-08-18

DIPAK MISRA

body2000
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. The factual matrix and the points of law involved being similar, both the civil revisions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in Civil Revision No. 659/95 arc adumbrated herein. 2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of papers. The non-applicant No. 1 had entered into an agreement with it for supply of eucalyptus timber waste for manufacture of papers. During the continuance of the agreement disputes arose between the parties. As there was an arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes the non-applicant No. 2 was appointed as the sole arbitrator. Non-applicant No. 2 entered into reference for adjudicating the claim put forth by the non-applicant No. 1 and eventually passed an award on 3-9-1990. It is worth noting here by the award the learned arbitrator rejected the claim of the non-applicant No. 1. The award was passed on 3-9-1990. The non-applicant No. 1 received intimation about passing of the award with a copy of the award on 10-9-1991. Thereafter, the non- applicant No. 1 filed an application before the competent Court for issuance of direction to the sole arbitrator to file the award and produce arbitration proceedings including documents. The said application was filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was numbered as C.S. No. 40/92. It is worth noting here in Paragraph 13 the non-applicant mentioned as follows :-- "13. That nothing was heard from the respondent No. 2 till 10-9-91 on which date the intimation along with a copy of the award dated 3-9-1990 was received by the petitioner." In Paragraph 14 the non-applicant No. 1 challenged the validity of the award on number of grounds. Thereafter, the arbitrator filed his award and the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Act. The same was registered as C.S. No. 27/92. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for making the award Rule of Court. The learned Trial Judge consolidated alt the applications and renumbered it as C.S. No. 14/92. Thereafter, the arbitrator filed his award and the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Act. The same was registered as C.S. No. 27/92. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for making the award Rule of Court. The learned Trial Judge consolidated alt the applications and renumbered it as C.S. No. 14/92. After the application under Section 17 of the Act was filed the non-applicant No. 1 filed an application praying therein that his earlier application filed under Section 14(2) of the Act be treated as an objection to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order which is the cause of grievance of the present revisionist. 3. Assailing the impugned order it is submitted by Mr. Dharmadhikari that filing of the application under Section 14(2) of the Act should have not been accepted as objection to the award as the same was filed before filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act by the petitioner. It is also urged by him that as no objection was filed within 30 days from the date of filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act, no further objection would be entertained. Resisting the aforesaid submissions, it is put forth by Mr. Hundikar that the non-applicant came to know about the existence of the award when the arbitrator served a copy of the same on him and thereafter, he filed an application before the Court below in incorporating his objections therein and hence, there is no hurdle or obstacle to treat the objection to be one under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. 4. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the application filed under Section 14(2) of the Act. As has been indicated earlier in Paragraph 13 the non-applicant had clearly stated that they had received the award on 10-9-1991. In Paragraph 14 of the said application various objections have been raised and the said application was filed on 4-10-1991 within 30 days of the receipt of the award. Period of limitation for filing an objection to an award is provided under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act. In Paragraph 14 of the said application various objections have been raised and the said application was filed on 4-10-1991 within 30 days of the receipt of the award. Period of limitation for filing an objection to an award is provided under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act. It reads as under :-- "(b) for setting aside an Thirty days The date of service of the award or getting an notice of the filing of the award remitted for award." reconsideration. 5. The non-applicant after receiving the copy of the awr.rd filed his objection within 30 days. The Article provides for 30 days from the dale of the filing of the award in Court. That necessarily means that one cannot be entitled to file objection beyond 30 days. It is not stipulated that an aggrieved party cannot file objection before the period of limitation starts to commence. This view of mine gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Union Bank of India and others Vs. Ajit Ram Jain, AIR 1986 Patna 19 wherein the Division bench held as under :-- "Clause (b) of Article 119 provides a period of limitation of 30 days for filing of application for setting aside an award. The third column of the Article provides for the starting date from which the period of 30 days has to be reckoned. That gives the date of the service of the notice of the filing of the award. That date is simply to reckon the period of limitation after the expiry of which a party cannot be permitted to file an objection, but that does not mean that a party cannot file objection before the period of limitation starts to com mence. The power of a party to apply to the Court does not depend on the service of the notice. What is provided in the third column of Article 119 is simply for the purpose of computing the period of limitation after the expiry of which the party would not be entitled to file the application." (quoted from the placitum) From the aforesaid decision it is graphically clear that one can file an objection from the date he receives notice from the arbitrator in relation to passing of the award. There are decisions in the filed which lay down that limitation commences from the date of receipt of the notice from the Court, but that does not necessarily preclude the parties to file objections before the competent Court after they have received the copy of the award from the arbitrator. Hence, I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Patna in the case of Ajitram (supra). 6. As in the present case objection was filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the award from the arbitrator it would be deemed to be within time. Submission of Mr. Dharmadhikari is that it was not filed within 30 days from the date of filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act has no legs to stand upon inasmuch as there is no provision that it has to be filed within 30 days from the date of riling of application under Section 17 of the Act. Apart from the above, his submission that an application under Section 14(2) of the Act cannot be regarded as objection, is not worth acceptance in the obtaining factual matrix inasmuch as numerous objections were raised in the said application. It is well settled in law there is no set pattern or proforma for filing objection. Hence, I do not perceive any error in the order of the Court below in accepting or treating the same as an objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. 7. In view of my preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the revisions and the same being devoid of substance, stand dismissed. 8. Civil Revision dismissed.