PETITIONER: M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S. C.K. AHUJA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1995 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) SAWANT, P.B. CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 744 JT 1995 (3) 132 1995 SCALE (1)705 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
G.N. RAY, J.:
1. In Civil Appeal Nos. 3882-85 of 1990 and SLP (Civil)
Nos. 10832-33 of 1989 this Court by order dated November 18,
1991, referred the disputes and differences in the said
Civil Appeals and leave applications to arbitration by
consent of parties. The order passed on November 18, 1991
is to the following effect:-
“The disputes and differences referred to in
the aforesaid matters are by consent referred
to the arbitration of Mr.J.P. Thakur, Dy.
Chief Engineer (Civil) Koylanagar P.O.,
Koylanagar District, Dhanbad, Bihar. Both the
parties undertake to rile a regular reference
agreement before the said arbitrator within
two weeks. Award to be made within four months
thereafter.”
2. The sole arbitrator thereafter entered the reference
and parties to the arbitration appeared before the
arbitrator and made submissions. The arbitrator thereafter
made an award on February 14, 1994 and such award was filed
before this Court by the arbitrator. The Registry of this
Court gave notice of filing of the award on April 29, 1994
to the learned counsel for both the parties. The
respondents namely M/s. C.K. Ahuja and another made an
application under Section 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Indian
Arbitration Act, 1940 on July II, 1994 before this Court
Inter alia praying that the award dated February 14, 1994
delivered by the sole arbitrator, Shri J.P. Thakur, be made
rule of Court and interest @ 24% be also given to the
appellants on the awarded sum from the date of the award.
It appears that Civil Appeal Nos. 3882-85 of 1990 were
listed on March 22, 1993 for hearing but in view of the fact
that the disputes relating to the appeals had been referred
to arbitration by consent of parties this Court by order
dated March 22, 1993 dismissed the said appeals.
3. The application under Section 14(2), 17 and 29 of the
Indian Arbitration Act came up for hearing but on the prayer
of Mr.G.S. Chatterjee, the learned counsel for M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd., a direction was given to issue fresh
notice on M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. about the filing of
the award. Such notice, however, was issued without
prejudice to the contentions of learned counsel for M/s C.K.
Ahuja and
134
another that the period for filing objections was already
barred by limitations. The objections to the award have,
however, been filed on November 20, 1994.
4. He said applications under Section 14(2), 17 and 29 of
the Indian Arbitration Act have been numbered as I.A. Nos.
912 of 1994 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3882-85 of 1990. At the
hearing of the said applications, learned counsel appearing
for M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. has contended that as the
award was not filed and signed in proper manner, the same
should not be taken into consideration. It was also con-
tended that the copy of the award was required to be
supplied to the parties and since copy of the award was not
given to Ws Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the question of filing
objections did not arise. it was also contended that the
said award was not filed in proper court. Accordingly,
there was no question of limitation running from the date of
filing the award. In support of the contention that there
will be no question of limitation if the award is not filed
in proper court reliance is made to a decision of this Court
in Slate Madhya Pradesh M/s Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd.
(1972(1) SCC 702). It may be stated here that the learned
counsel for s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. took inspection of the
award on October 3, 1994 but the objection to the award was
not filed within thirty days from such inspection. Disput-
ing the said contentions, Mr. Bhandare, the learned counsel
appearing for Ws C.K. Ahuja and another. has contended that
the reference to arbitration has been -made by this Court on
the prayer of the parties. Accordingly, the arbitration
proceedings have originated in this Court. Therefore the
award is required to be filed before this Court.
Consequently, the objection if any to the award is also
required to be filed before this Court, Ile has also
submitted that at no point of time, any objection was raised
by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. about the alleged impropriety
in filing the award before this Court even though the notice
of the counsel was drawn about filing of the award in April,
1994. Even in the petition of objection filed before this
Court, no objection has been taken by Ws Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. that the award should not have been filed before this
Court. Accordingly, such contention should not be allowed
to be raised at the hearing of these applications. Mr.
Bhandare has also contended that when the award has been
filed in the Court and the attention of the learned counsel
of the parties drawn by the Registry of this Court about the
filing of the award, the period of limitation for filing
objection to such award will run from the date of the
notice, Although on the prayer of the learned counsel for
the objector, a fresh notice was issued later on, the
limitation for filing objection to the award cannot be
counted from the date of such notice issued subsequently by
this Court at the instance of the learned counsel for M/s
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. In support of this contention Mr.
Bhandare has referred to a decision of this Court in Food
Corporation of India and others v.E.Kuttappan (JT 1993 (4)
SC 90). In the said decision reference was made to an
earlier decision of this Court in Nilkantha Shidramappa
Ninoashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ninoashetti and others
(1962 (2) SCR 55 1) and Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v.
Raunod and Company Pvt. Ltd. (1988 (4) SCC 31 ). It has been
held in the decision in Food Corporation of India’s case
(supra) that the obligation of filing the award in Court is
a legal imperative on the arbitrator and when
135
the award was filed in Court and the parties were aware of
such filing of the award in Court, the limitation to file
objection would run from the date of filing the award being
made known to the parties, and not from any subsequent date
when a notice of filing of such award was subsequently
issued to the parties concerned.
5. Mr. Bhandare has contended that in the instant case the
Registry of this Court specifically drew the attention of
the counsel in April, 1994 about the filing of the award but
despite such knowledge, the appellant, M/s Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. did not choose to file any objection to the said
award. Even after taking inspection of the award on October
3, 1994, the objection has not been filed within a period of
thirty days from such inspection but the objection has been
filed only on November 20, 1994. Accordingly, the objection
to the award should not be considered as the same is
hopelessly barred by limitation.
6. In our view, the contention raised by Mr. Bhandare in
whollyjustified. The Registry of this Court gave notice to
the learned counsel for the parties about the filing of the
award in April, 1994. It is nobody’s case that counsel had
an authority to take such notice on behalf of either of the
party. It was also open to the counsel to take inspection
of the award. As a matter of fact, such inspection was also
taken on October 3, 1994 but no objection was filed within
thirty days either from the notice given by the Registry in
April, 1994 or from the date of inspection of the award on
October 3, 1994. It has been held by this Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. M/s Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. (1972 (1)
SCC 702) that where the Arbitrator was appointed by the
Supreme Court by consent of parties and no further
directions were given in the said order which would indicate
that the Supreme Court had not divested itself of its
jurisdiction to deal with the award or matters arising out
of award, the forum for taking further action is the Supreme
Court. It has also been held in the said decision that in
the absence of any other court having been invested with
such jurisdiction, the only conclusion that is possible is
that further orders must be passed only by the Court that
passed the order, namely, the Supreme Court. Mr. Bhandare
has relied on a later decision of this Court in Punjab State
Electricity Board v. Ludhiana Steels Private Ltd. (1993 (1)
SCC 205)in support of his contention that when reference to
arbitration was made by this Court, the award is to be filed
in this Court only. We may only indicate that the said
decision has a distinguishing feature inasmuch as in that
case after making reference to arbitration, this Court
specifically directed that the award would be sent to
Registry of this Court. In any event, even if it is assumed
that the award should be filed in other Court when the
notice of filing of the award was given by the Registry of
this Court, objection as to the award including objection as
to forum ought to have to been raised before this Court and
it will not be open to the parties to altogether ignore the
notice of filing the award given by the Registry of this
Court. We may also indicate here that in the petition of
objection it has not been urged that there has been any
impropriety in filing the award in this Court. Accordingly,
such objection should not be permitted to be raised at this
stage as the objection to the award has been filed long
after the period of limitation, the same should be
dismissed. We may also indicate here that even on merit, we
136
do not think that any interference is called for against the
award. We, therefore, allow the Interlocutory Application
Nos. 9 to 12 of 1994 and direct the award to be made rule of
Court. It also appears to us that in the facts of the case,
the applicants M/s. C.K. Ahuja and another, are entitled to
get an award of interest @ 12% from the date of the award
till realisation. The Interlocutory applications are
accordingly disposed of There will be no order as to costs.
138