L22 fsF^ ® '3~o^ T^ll<4ld<4, ^Til^^Ko, T^<ni^iy SV^ XR^ ^(+(C<1I 9h*4rai ^ 200 l^sr' "^ STT^T^T f<Tii<=b ^TI^T 5h<-ii<=b ^if^a ^TT^T'^TT^R'H^TT SB : HON?BLB DHIRES^DRA MISHRA. J. C!Y!LREy FETlTIONBR Vs. K^S?ONDBNT Ra (N^ Co Ple wo Di< M. R/ID Adarsh Nagar Projectioii Enikay Nu(mao., P.0. Durg (Chhattisgaili) CTVILKEV FBTTT30NBR Vs. KKSPOKPKMT 3-8-200'7 None appears for fhe af Slui S.L. Pm'ohit, Advc|< 2. Siace bofli tlie abovd comnion order dated 6-4-2004 ofby this comniou order, CM^(^<ili ^<i^<yiT'^ Fs^l iPsi^K ^ 3?rf^Fr 37T^T S!QN No. 121/2004 |$thriya Padyojaaa Nirmaa Nigain ttioual Projects Coiistructiou bporauon) 30-31 Raja House Nehru ce, New DeUii havnig sub-offlce aad rks of the sajae naiae at Jamnipali .tt. Korba Chhattisgaj-h Salia, son of J. L, Salia Coiitractor, SIOW No. 122/2004 RajsUuiya Pariyojaiia Niraiaii Nigaai (N^itional Projects Construction Co|rporation) 30-31 Raja Mouse Nehni Pl^ice/ New DeUii h^ving sub-office and wcj^rks of llie saiue uaiuc al Jaiiiuipali Di^tt. Korba CIiliattisgarh ^. M,|K. Saha, son of J.L. Salia Coutractor, R/|o Adarsh Nagar Projection Emkay Nilnimi, P.0, Durg (Chhattisgarh) plicant, ;ate for Uie respondent. civil revisions were disposed of by a -, both Uie revisions are being disposed [^^ y^ XI-HC-22 -g-oET r^||q|^<4, ^Tl1<1<l<o, fa<rtl^y 3TR^T ''^ra? 3T^T^T f<rlJ5h S^\ 5t)^icb ^f^a ^w^\ ^q^-—•——•—*——.—-^F^ ^^ ' 1^81" ^TI^T'^TT8?T Trf^T 3. This rcvision is directe(|l passed by the 3rd Additiona| CaselMo. 27/2002 whercby has rejected the objection p mat tSie Uourt tias terntonail to 3iiake rule of Court 011 Uie| of fhe appUcaat are not barre 4. This matter was akeadh?' beiiig decided on nierits evenj 5. Brief fact of fhe case aj 29-7-1994 were passed by arbitration agreenient beti¥^< autliorized the non-applic^ leamed District Judge, Dur^ aiid parties were duly notic< District Judge, Durg aiid temtorial jurisdiction to mal{:< aad accordmgly it was hel^ tenitorial jurisdiction. The aiid Uiereafter Uie said awarfl Bilaspur by tlie non-applic^ fhat whether fhe award has| aay valid aiitliority of Uie CM^t<n<;flti tTR^f1? 'feT:st iFsi^K '^'^rf^pT 3i7^r agamst the order dated 6th Apiil, 2004 District Judge, BUaspur iti Arbitration tjhe leanied 3rd Additional Uistdct Judge )(refeiTed by the appUcaat and has held Ijurisdiction to entertaiii for the purpose [basis oftlie award aiid me appUcations ]|d bv limitatiou. admitted on 1-10-2004, fherefore, it is lia the absence ofthe applicaiit. t'e that the awards dated (28-7-1994 and tlie Sole Arbitrator arisiag out of the m the parties aiid me said arbitrator i|at for tTting Uie award ia the Court of [. The same was filed ia the said Court |d. Both the parties appeared before the • raised objection that Court has no rule ofCourton tlie basis ofthe award mat tlie District Judge, Durg had no ^ward was retunied to fhe non-appllcaiit was filed ia the Court of Distnct Judge, ^at, Tlie objection of fhe applicant was been filed by the non-applicaiit without aifbitrator aad whether the award could be ® XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r f<viich ^n^r »»+iich<if^a ^^ r^i^i<rt<Lj, ^nl^^Ko, fa<ni^y 3^T XR^ *11HCTI ^^iq,—----^ ^^ fN^[ST* ^TT^T'^IT^R'Hftn retunied to the non-applicai^t the prescnbed period of timi^ 6. Leanied Distdct Jud^ fhe objections of fhe applics|iit authorized bv tlie Arbitratc award before Uie compe^ authorization nientioiied tlj Distdct Judge/ Durg will award before Uie competent| that since fhe award has be^ of authorization given by thj validlv returaed to hini forl tliat court had no tenitorial limitation, it has beeu held 1996 aad tiie saiae was ffle|d sio.ee fhe award was filedl yniitation, article 137 offh^ Article 119 ofthe Linutatioit wifhui a period of Uiree y^ prescribed period of Iimite.ti^ 7, I have heard the lean-1 8. It has been contende(|l 1940 provides thafc- CM^f<n<4li 'RPT^f ^ f^t <P»l^k ^ ^rf^TR ^377^^ and whetlier tlie award was filed wifhia lation ^ ;/ Ctei'g by the inipiigned order rejected aiid held fhat tlie nou-appiican.t was }r by aa authorily letter for tTling fhe |;ent Court and siBiply because the Lat fhe same be filed in. tlie -Court of |iot prohibit froni necessity of ffliag the [Court and siBiUariy it has also been held ?n filed by the non-applicant on tlie basis arbitrator fherefore, fhe same could be fuiag before fh.e conipetent Court suice jurisdiction. Considering the question of that the award was retumed on 14-5- on 24-6-1996 m the Comt of Bilaspiy, j| by the Arbitrator, for fhe purpose of Liaiitation Act was appllcable iii place of Act under which the award mav be filed tars aad therefore, filiag was wifhin the m. ed counsel for tlie applicant, tliat Sectiou 14(2) ofthe Arbitration Act, [Tft^ ^pa^ -T XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T 'f^N'sn^r $t»^i<^ ^if^a "7ST r^l^ld^l, ^Tl1<1^<o, fa<3ll^y 3TT^T XHT^ HW^\[ ^^^ '''''''''-'"——-^ ^QQ '^^T' ^TI^T'^TT^ Trf^T ^ "14. Award to be s^, umpire shall^ ai ihe agreernent or any perf directed by the Coz!rt aue in respect oj tne charges offiling the aiv\ ii, togelher wilh any have been taken and ^ and the Court shall th{ filing ofthe award, s^gned cmd jtl€d.'(2) The arbitrators or ^equesi of any party io ihe arbiiraiiQn ^on clcdming uruier such pariy or if so a^d z^pon payment of tkefees and charges arpitration and award and of the costs and .^ird, catise ihe aioard or a signed copy of \depo^uions und docurneru^ luhich rfioy ^roved before mem, to be filed in Couri, ^reupon give notic^ to the parties of the 9. Referriiig to Section contended that it is open to to cause fhe award to be award by one of fhe parties be faulted with, 1(4(2) of Uie Arbiti'ation Act, 1940, it is iphe arbitrator on the reqiiest of the party filetd aad therefore, filmg of the arbitration [after aumorization for tlie same caanot De^n ia AIR 19S3 SC 313, while of award, iii para 6 it has iaipUes that where fhe awar4 uito Coiirt by a part\7 he sho^ doiiig so. Where Uie awards parties, it cainot be awards to tlie parties to j51e fhe same Hito Court speci&cally aUeged aiid prov^d Uie awaixi by the party caiin<|>t assunlieci neces^irily chl^f<n<fll 'HW^rf ^ feT^t ^^K '^^rf^RSTT^T 10. In Uie matters ofKiabh|a Mawji -v- Domimosa of Isadia reported 4ealh.ig wifh authority of umpu'e for filmg held fhat this Section (S, 14[21) clearly or a signed copy fhereof is ui fact filed tuld have the authority ofthe unipire for are handed over by tlie. umpire to fhe that the uiere hancliiig over of the ^irily mipUes me auUiority of Uie unipire bn his behalf. That authoritv has to be [, In absence of such aufhorin7, filing of be the filmg by the umpire. - "^. "^ \^ XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T ^ich 3?n^r 9ti^i<=ft <<-if^a -s^ ^ii<4id<4, ^nl^^Ko, fa<ni^y 3^?T '^^R ^WW ^^,ch """"^'^ 200 '^^T' ^TI^T'^TT^R'^T[ ^ 11. As aiready observed by was tileci by Uie nou-appuc^ arbitrator for iTling fhe saaie b flie leamed District Judge, fhe award it along wim aufhority letter of Uie ^ore fhe competent Court. railsed 12, - The second olyjection Uie leamed District Judge iii tJ District Judge, could not have letter to the nou-applicaat for| Court. There is no force ta fyis Judge has rightly poiated out bv the arbitrator by an auU' coinpetent Court, therefore, learaed District Jzidge, Durg applicant who had tiie aumo] fiihig Uie same before the com] 13. The last subniission ol award was fUed ia tlie Court the period of iuiiitation presc4bed Patei Motibhal Naranbttai Patel asid others reported m| has been held that an applic^ has to be made wifhto. 30 da^ m.akiag of fhe award under Ajj1 it is held tliat Articie 119 wiu CM^f<n<flt1 'HW^f ^ i^Sf <Fa1^1< ir 3?rf^fH 377^r by the appUcant as discussed by ^e ioipiigned orcler is fhat Uie Coiirt of |petunied fhe award aiid the aiifhority filhig the saaie,before Uie competent argunient aiid tlie learaed Distdct Ithat fhe non-appUcaiit was aufhorized loritv letter to file fhe award in fhe m the objecUon of tlie parties, fhe ijighUy retumed the award to tlie non- |ity to file fhe award ui his Court for ?tent Court. tiie applicaiit Uiat ia any case, the eyond 30 days i.e. after fhe expiry of for fhis purpose.in the Biatter of asaother -v- Dixiubhai afiotibhai slad AIR 1996 SC 997 in pai'agraph 9, it tion for filiag tiie award io. tlie Court from tiie date of service of notice of icle 119 of the Liaiitation Act. Even if ipply only to an appUcation inade by a X.^-.-. T- * XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^ri?r3n^T ^4-(ich ^Ra ?f!- ^s\ -^oET ^|^|ld<LI, ^Tli^^Ko, fa<ytl^y 3ff^T 'q^7 'ffTOW^nrra? '""""""""""""""""^T^ 200 "fq^ST" ^T^T ^RTT^T'Hf^T ( tiib party aiid not by the arbitra^ the ai'bitrators makiiig aiiy years froni tlie date of Biakuil not ui dispute tliat me art( fhrough the non-applicaiit ac( aumority letter to Uie non-ap^ before fhe competent Court: luiiitation, Article 137 of under which iimitation is pre| has been filed by the non-a^ for fhis reason, Uie leamed award was filed by the prescribed for fhe saisie. 14. Leanied Court below d fhe applicaiit aiid further conji by Hon^ble SzipreDie Cour( preferred by fhe applicaat an<( law which does not caU for l5. The revisions beiug dismissed and tliey are accorf 16, A copy of Uiis order be| 122/2004. arlv cM^fd<i1<l '^TTR^Tf'? 'fe^t' ^^K '^3rf^m^3:^^T |or, Ardcle 137 will come in fhe way of ^.pplication beyoud tlie period of three fe of tlie awaixi. In Uie instant case, it m ^itorator caused the award to be filed ld for tliat purpose, he handed over tlie t)Mcaat authorizmg him to file the award aiid, therefore, for fhe purpose of Limitation Act would be appUcable, ^cnbed as Uiree years. Siace the award Iplicant along witii aufhority letter and pistdct Jiidge has righUy held tliat Uie Arb|itrator witliiii the period of limitation |onsidering all tlie objections raised by Isidermg the law laid down in fhis rcgard ^ has rightly rejected the objections |i flie saoie is stdctly iii accordaace with uiterference. (ftevoid of substaace are Uable to be [iuigiy disraissed. ke.pt ia fhe record of Civil Revision No. Sd/- DfflRENDRA MISHRA Judge [Tft^ ^Ra^