Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2022


RSS Feed img

State of Bihar Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Order [1993] INSC 269 (7 May 1993)

Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Bharucha S.P. (J)

CITATION: 1994 AIR 501 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 574



1. Special leave granted.

2. The short point which arises for consideration is whether in the instant case the period of limitation under Article 1 19 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 runs from the date of filing of the award or the date of service of notice thereof by the Court. The facts reveal that the arbitrator forwarded his award in a sealed cover to the Court on February 17, 1988. The Court opened the sealed cover in the presence of counsel for both the parties on February 23, 1988, pursuant to an application made in that behalf on February 19, 1988. The objection-petition was filed on March 24, 1988 i.e. on the 31st day after the award was made known to the parties on February 23, 1988. The counsel for the appellant submits that under Article 119 referred to earlier, the period of + Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9540 of 1989 575 limitation runs from "the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award". Indisputably in the instant case no notice was issued by the Court but the award was made known on February 23, 1988. The point seems to be covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd. v. Raunaq & Co. (P) Ltd.' In paragraph 6 of that judgment this Court observed: (SCC p. 33, para6) "The filing in the court is necessary and the intimation thereof by the Registry of the court to the parties concerned is essential." Proceeding further in paragraph 10 of the judgment this Court observed: (SCC p. 35, para 10) "The fact that the parties have notice of the filing of the award, is not enough. The notice must be served by the court. We reiterate again that there must be (a) filing of the award in the proper court; (b) service of the notice by the court or its office to the parties concerned; and (c) such notice need not necessarily be in writing. It is upon the date of service of such notice that the period of limitation begins and as at present under clause (b) of Article 1 19 of the Act, the limitation expires on the expiry of the 30 days of the service of that notice for an application for setting aside of the award. The importance of the matter, which need to be emphasised, is the service of the notice by the court. It is not the method of the service that is important or relevant."

3.Assuming for the sake of argument that when the sealed envelope was openedand the award was made known to the parties through their counsel, the periodof limitation began to run against the party questioning the award. Even so, incomputing the period of limitation of 30 days the day the parties were informed of the nature of the award i.e. February 23, 1988, would have to be excluded in view of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act. If that date is excluded, the objections filed within 30 days, i.e. on March 24, 1988, were clearly within time. Therefore, even if this case is treated as belonging to category (c) referred to in the observation extracted from paragraph 10 of the judgment referred to above there is no doubt that the objection petition was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Article 1 19, clause (b), in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, this appeal must be allowed and the order passed by the High Court must be set aside. The matter will go back to the trial court for disposal of the objection petition in accordance with law. No order as to costs.


Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys