\ 1 -, - \,;, \ <

I. ,-.- \".

I\ >

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS ..

\ ... v. . " ...

E. KUTIAPPAN

JUNE 21, 1993

[A.M, AHMADI AND MA.DAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.]

Arbitration Act. 1940 :

-··- S.14-Awardlirnitation for filing objection-Held. period of limitation fo.rjiling'objection begins from the date of co1ins accepting placement of award c be, fore it so far as party placing award before coim is concerned. ·

' I

The respondent r.Jed two suits against the appellants under s: 20 or the Arbitratio;. Act, 1940 for appoinhnent of an arbitrator: The arbiirator W.s . ......,: appointed ho made awards. On respondent's reqU.Cst the. Arhitrar.-for:" . warded the awards to forin.er'scounsel who in turn riled the same i~ Coul-tOn D . 25.10.1988 directed issuance of notice to counsel for the parlic~ for 7.11.i988 •.

and accordbigly intimated the appell; nts. The court on.3.li.1988 directed issuance ofooticetocounscl for the parties for7.11.1988. The respondcntfded objections under's. 14 (2) of the Act on S.12.1988 computing the period of".

limitation Crom 7 .11.1988. Appellants' plea orlimitation against respondent's- Lobjections was rejected by. the trial court. The revisions fded by the ap(iellnts . were disinissed by the High Court. The appellants r.Jed the appeals by special

leave.· -

- -

The appelln~ contnded that though under s.14(2) of the At-o)ice of r.Jing orthe award was required to be sent by the Court, with the placing of F the award before_ the court and court's accepting i~ pla<::ement in~ if on

25.10.1988 the factual filing of the award had been made ; and sequally notice .. -i' to the respondent through his. cunscl, and the subsequent order dated . 3:11.1988 directing notice for 7.11.1988 was of no consequence. ------ . - .

Allowing the apPe:ils, and setting aside the order~ orthe High Court arid G . the trial Court, this Court . . . . .

HELD : 1.1. The period or limitation for the purposes ot fding the

bjection, in so far as the respobdent l\'a.S Conerned, d begun oit October -: 25,1988 (i.e. the date of placing the award before the court by respondent's H c?un.Sel) and, thCrefore, the objecti.ons lied by te respondent on.Decemr--_-~

• ~·

'I l F. "·" ;, FOODCORPNv:E:, KOTTAP'PANl[PlJ'NCHHl.J] 1029

6, 1988 were barred by time, those having been fild beyond the prescribed A period of thirty days.

bf'.!i/

1.2. The mute language inherent in the action of the court in accepting the placement of the award into it on 25.10.1988 did convey to the party placing the award before it, th~ factum of the award being filed in court. The mere fact that at a subsequent state, the court issued notice to the parties informing them of the ftling of the award in court for the purpose of anyone to object to the award being made the rule of the court is an act of the court which cannot in law prejudiCe the rights of the parties

Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Raunag and Company Pvt. Ltd.;.[1988] 4 SCC 31 &Nilkantlza SlzidramappaNmgaslzetti v. Kashinatlz Somanna Ningashetti and otlzers:£1962] 2 SCR 551,_relied on.

 Hansanal/i Abdallai Malabafi v. Shanti/al Bhaidas Marfatia and other.:AIR [1962] Gu, iarat 317 & The State ofBihar and others v. Liason and Contracts and anothelj AIR 1983 Patna 10~, referred to.

2.1. The obligation of filing the award in court is a legal imperative on the Arbitrator. The agency of the party or its lawyer employed by the

 Arbitrator for the purpose normally .need be specific but can otherwise be deducted, inferred or implied from the facts and circumstances of a given .E case. It needs, however, shedding the impression that when a lawyer files the award in court when given to him by the Arbitrator his implied authority to do so, shall not be presumed to exist. ·

2.2. In the instant case,. it was the respondent who by his letter had requested the Arbitrator to send to his lawyer the. award for ftling it into court and to whom the Arbitrator obliged on such request. When the ArbitratQr chose to accede to the request of the respondent in specific terms, he by necessary implication authorised the respondent's counsel to ftle the award and the connected papers in court on his behalf.

J(umb Mawji v. Union of lndiao[I935] SCR 878, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals N9s. 3139-40 of. 1993.

From the Judgment and Order. dated 4.1.90 of the Kerala High Court in H

-1030 Sl1PREME COURT REPORTS --~ .,,'.J UOOl

(1993) 3 S.C.R.

A C.R.P. Nos. 1520 and 1527of1989.

. c

B. Sen Vivek Gambhir, Surinder Karnail and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellants. .

M.P. Vinod and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PUNCHHI. J. Leave granted .

These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated January 4, 1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court . at Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petitions No. 1520 and 1527 or 1989. .

Th~ facts giving rise thereto are few and meaningful. The respondent filed two suits against the appellants praying under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes said to have arisen out of contracts inter-se. One B.S. Hegde was appointed as an Arbitrator. He made awards on October 3, 1988. On that date itself, the Arbitrator on his own had given notice to the parties under Section 14(1)ofthe making and signing of the awards. The respondent, on October 4, 1988, requested the Arbitrator by means of a letter to forward the awards to his counsel for filing the same in the Court. On October 1. 2, 1988, the Arbitrator forwarded the awards and the entire record to the advocate of the respondent by a forwarding letter with copy of the letter to the appellant. On October 25, 1988, respondent's counsel filed . the awards in the Court and intimated to the appellant to that effect on October 26, • 1988. Later the Court per its order'dated November 3, 1988, directed the issuance F of notice to the counsel appearing for the parties for November 7, 1988. The respondent filed objections-under Section 14(2) of the Act on December 5,. 1988, computing the period of limitation of thirty days under Article 119 of the Limiiation Act 1963 from November 7, 1988, the date for which counsel for the parties were summoned by. the court to be told of the filing of the awards. The appellants raised in defence the plea of limitation against the respondent's G objections and conversely prayed for making the awards the .rule of the court. The

. trial court did not find favour with the objections of the appellant and proceeded to _hear the objections of the respondent against the awards. The High Court 1< declining to interfere in the two revisions separately filed by the appellants to press H for the objection of limitation has led the appellant Food Corporation of India to come before us in these appeals.

...

""' t

FOODCORPN v. E. KUITAPPAN [PUNCHHI, J] 1031

Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act says that when the Arbitrator or A umpire have made the award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to. the parties of tl'fe making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. Sub-section (2) provides that the Arbitrator or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of B the costs and charges of filing the award; cause the award or a signed copy of it. together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken any proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. Article 119 of the limitation Act, 1963 provides that an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration, the period of limitation is 30 days computable from thedate of service of the notice of the filing of the award.

Now what do the words "give notice .. mean in the context. has been subject of judicial exponance as also to the effect of filing of award in Court by a party

(instead of the Arbitrator) with or without the express or implied authority of the Arbitrator. For the former, take the cases of [1962] 2SCR55-[1988]4 SCC 31, and AIR (1962) (Gujarat) 317, and for the latter take the cases of [1953] SCR 879 and AIR 1983 Patna 10 I.

In the case of Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningasltetti v. Kashinath Somarna Ningashetti and otlters.,[1962] 2 SCR 551, the Arbitrator had filed the award in court on February 18, 1948 and three days later on February 21, 1948 .• the Civil Judge adjourned the matter "for parties say to the Arbitrator's report", to March 22, 1948. The point wh.ich feil for consideration was that when no specific notice in writing had been issued by the court under Section 14 of the Act to the parties, wtiere from shall the period oflimitation be reckoned for filing an objection against the award. This Court observed on page 555 of the report as follows:-

"Sub-section ( 1) of Section 14 of the Arbitration A.ct, 1940 (X of

1940) requires the arbitratororumpire to give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award. Sub-section (2) of

that section requires the Court, after the filing of the award, to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The difference in the G provisions of the two sub-sections with respect to the giving of notice is significant and indicates clearly that the notice which the Court is to give to the parties of the filin~ of the award need not be a notice in writing. The notice can be given orally. No question of the service of the notice in the formal way of delivering the notice or tendering it to the party can arise in the case of a notice given a

1032 SUPREl\1E COURT REPORTS [199313 s.c:R.

orally. The communication of the information that an award has been filed is sufficient compliance with the requirements of subsection (2) of Section 14 with respect to the giving of the notice to the-parties concerned a?out the filing of the award. 'Notice' does not necessarily mean 'communication in writing'. 'Notice', according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, means 'intimation, intelligence, warning and has this meaning in expressions like' give notice, have notice' and it also means 'formal intimation of somethipg, or instructions to do something' and has such a meaning in expressions like 'notice to quit, till further notice'. We are of opinion that the expression 'give notice' in sub-s. (2) of s. 14, simply means giving intimation of the filing of the award. which certainly was given to the parties through their pleaders on February 21, 1948. Notice to the pleader is notice to the party, in view of r.5 of O.III, Civil Procedure Code, wich provides that any process served on the pleaderof any party shall be presumed to bedul y communicated and made known to the party whom the pleader represents and, unless the Court otherwise directs, shall be as effectual for all purposes as if the same had been given to or served on the party of person."

In the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Raunag and Company Pvt.

Ltd:.'[1988] 4 SCC 31, this Court before applying the ration of Nilkantha's case supra, analysed the facts to state that the award therein had been filed in the High E Court on February 4, 1977. The respondent herein had affirmed an affidavit on November.29, 1977 stating that the award had been filed in the court on February 4,. 1977 and made prayer on that basis that a notice be issued and served on the appellant so that the judgment in terms of the award could be passed. The court then went on to hold in view of the facts that the notice was served on the appellant

on February 4,. I 978 because on that date the appellant had acknowledged by affidavit that the award had been filed in the High Court of Calcutta but it had been filed in a wrong court. According to the appellant, he had later got notice of the filing of the award communicated to him by the court on which date he would have limitation reckoned. But this Court held that limitation was to be computed from February 4, 1978 and on that basis objection to set aside the award made in September 8, 1981 was held to be time barred. Ration of Nilkantha's case was applied to reiterate that the expression 'give notice in Section 14 (2) simply mearit giving information of filing of the award and such intimation need not be given in writing and could otherwise be communicated.

In Hansanalli Abdulalli Malabari v. Shanti/al Bhaidas Marfatia and otlu•r_

/ ' '

,~_---;--,.',,.;--·:\'""; :\ \ (' •', \,. i , . " .. ' /\ > l

I - -_.-- . 1 : ·· .· F~~oJ.1;{~:E. 1 KurrA~ANIPUcHH1,11 1033 ,\. "-' Affi [1962] (Gujarat) 317, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court has A taken the view that when written notice is sent under Section 14 (2) of the Act. that wOutd be the Starting point fortbe period Of limitation. If there is no written notice then the date on which oral or informal or constructie intimation was given to the ' parties by the Court of the fact that the awafcl stood filed would be the starting.point . for limition: The Court took the view that since there cannot be two starting points for the period oflimitation. one from the date oforal intimation and the qther B . from the dale of service of notice, the latter, if existing, would prevail over the

fornier. ·. · ·· ·

. In Kumbha Mawji v. Union of lndillc{l953] SC.R 878, this Court had the occasion to examine the question whether a party filing an award in court without :, thcauthority of the Arbitrator or the Umpire, could be said to have "filed the award · .: on his behalr in terms of Section.14 (2) of the Act This Court took the view that where the award or a signed copy thereofis "in fact filed into court by a party, lie should have before hand the authority of the Arbitratr or.umpire for doing sc. It was also ruled that ii cannot be assumed that the mere mending over of the awarc!S

.. to the parties necessarily implied the atilliority of the Arbitrator orof the Umpire D . to file the same Into Court on his behalf and that such authority has to be ·.specifically alleged and proveii It was tiiken that the Arbitratoror the Umpire may . not ill a given situation be.aware thatthe award.should be filed imo couit by himself only_or under hiS authority. In that case ilied authority could not be proved.

A Divis:OO Bench of the Patna High Court in The State o/Bihar and others E

v. Iiasoir amt Cantracts and another, Affi [1983] (Patna) IOI, overlooking the judgmeni Ji Kturwha Mawji's case supra, took the view that where the pleader of the defendants had filed the award in court aqd the couit had not issued separate notices at the filing of the award under Section 14, then it could not be said by the defendants that they bad no knowledge of the filing of the award merely because no separate notie had been issued to them under Section 14. No notice was hel~ F required to be issued to any of the parties as the fact of filing of the awarci must the deemed to be within theirknowiedge on the basis that their own pleader had filed the award and. hence the objections if any should h_ave been . filed within the prescribed period Of thirty days.

 Assimilating the legal thoughts afore-expressed and applies to the facts G

. arore-statect. it becomes manifest that when the Arbitrator had sent the award and

other papers to the respondent through his counsel, u_nless he had authorised the resp.indent. or his counsel on his behalf to the filing of it in court.· ii cannot be assumed that. when the respondent or his counsel filed the award and other H

,, , '

'~.--f,~/.-~ 1\ ···-1 /',_\·--~--·\'.~--.. .' :>;._:'--· /"-'> . /, ' . -\ ;. 1034 .> . '

', SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1993) 3 s:c.R. -·,,\ ~\' ':\·, " 1 , . ' "':. \ '-.-' ' . ' . -- '• ' ' ' \. • .

'::-A~ _'cO~~, ecte~ PaPers.· ini court it was nor done for d _on behfOrUiC :Arb'itrator_ .

. Instantly it was the respondent who by his letter had requested the Arbitrator to ' . send to his lawyer the award for filing it intQ 'coun and to whom the Arbitratpr.

':-.. . - . ' -., -- ·. . obliged on such request In our view, when the Arbitrator chose to accede to the request of the respondent in specific terms, be by necessary iriipliction authorised' the respondent's counsel to file the award and the conriected papers in court on tiis behalf. The law enjoined on the Arbitrator to file the award in Court for which puri>ose he could even be directed by the court. The obligation of filing the awarcj in court is a legal imperative on the Amiirator: The agency or the party or its · . lawyer employed by the arbitrator for the purpose normally need be specific but

can otherwise be deduced, inferred or implied froni the facts and circumstances of a given case. It needs, however, shedding the impression that when a lawyer files the award in court when given to him by the Arbitrator his implied authority to do so, shall not be presumed to exist. It the instant case, no one raised the plea that the filing of the award in court by the respondent's lawyer was withoµt the authority of the Arbitrator and the courts below were noten'g°aged on that question •.

The matter was gitated on the basis of knowledge of award from thai fact. . . . ' . .

, On the strength of afore-mentioned two cases' of this court, i.e. NikOnth~'s case and Indian Rayon'scase, it was Claimed on behalf o(the appellants that

though the legal requirement is that the notice besent by the court: some otheract or the coun is enough to foisi awareness of the filing of the award in court, where . from the perlod oflimitation w.as to comnience. Instantly, it was urged that when E . the award had factually been placed before the coun artd the coun had accepted

itS placement ito it on October 25. 1988 itSelf. the factual filing or ilie award h:id been made and sequally notie to the respondent through his counsel. Even though ilie coun had subsequently on November 3. 1988 issued.'ncitice for . November 7, 1988; the former .. act. according to, the appeliant. was ... enough .. compliance or coun sending the notice and the latter act was of no consequence. F . It does not lie in the mouth of the respondentto say that though he filed the award ·

in coun through his counsel, with.or without the implied or express authority of the Arbitrator, he ciid not have Uie .corresponding knowledge of the (Hing o.f the award.. when the award was readily received by the con. It seems to us that the ·. niute language inherent in the action of the Court did convey to the'-party placing . G . 'the award beforeit. the factumofihe award being filed in coon. The mere fac.t that at a subsequent stage; the c_ourt issued notice to the parties infonning theffi of the

. filing of the award in court for the purpose of anyone to object to the award being ' made. the rule of the court is ari act of the coun which cannot in law prejudice the rights of the parties. If once it is taken that the period oflimitatimi for the purposes . of filing the objection. in so far as the respondent was'concemed, had begun on .· . . -~

~------------·--··-.,. ... --. ---- ·-----~

FOOD CORPN v. E. KUITAPPAN [PUNCHHI. J] 1()-35 .

October 25, 1988, the objections filed by it on December6, 1988 were obviously A

~ barred by time, those having been filed beyond the prescribed period of thirty days.

If this be the logical conclusion, the appeals shall merit acceptance, holding the objections filed by the respondents to be time barred. Thus, so concluding, we allow these appeals, set aside the commonjudgment and order of the High Court, and that of the trial court, holding the objections filed by the respondents to be time barred. The trial court will proceed further in these matters in accordance with law.

B The parties to bear their own costs.

R.P.

Appeals allowed.