Case Note & Summary
This civil appeal, brought on certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, arose from a partition suit among members of a joint family. Defendant No. 12, the appellant, was a minor represented by guardians during the proceedings. The parties, except defendant No. 11, referred their differences to arbitration. The arbitrator filed the award in court on February 18, 1948. On February 21, 1948, the Civil Judge adjourned the matter for parties' say to the arbitrator's report, and pleaders were present. Defendant No. 1 filed objections on April 2, 1948 but withdrew them on March 31, 1949. The guardian of the minor defendant No. 12 filed a written statement on November 9, 1948, challenging the award and praying that it be declared null and void. The Civil Judge on August 24, 1949 ordered that the award be filed and a decree be drawn up in terms of the award, observing that no objections except defendant No. 1's were filed, and that those objections were beyond the period of limitation. Defendant No. 12 appealed to the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal as incompetent, holding that no formal written notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was necessary and that objections filed under Section 33 were also objections to set aside the award but were time-barred. The Supreme Court considered whether limitation under Article 158 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 began to run only from service of written notice of filing, and whether the order filing the award amounted to refusal to set aside. The Court held that the expression 'give notice' in Section 14(2) simply means intimating the filing of the award, which need not be in writing and could be given orally. Notice to counsel is notice to party under Order III Rule 5 CPC, and oral communication amounts to service when no particular mode is prescribed. Therefore, limitation began on February 21, 1948 when pleaders were informed, and the objections filed later were beyond time. The Court further held that since no application praying for setting aside the award was made, there was no refusal to set it aside, and hence no appeal was maintainable under Section 39(1)(vi). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Notice of Filing Award - Meaning of 'give notice' - Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 14(2) - The court need not give notice in writing of filing the award; oral intimation to parties or their pleaders is sufficient compliance; the difference between Section 14(1) and 14(2) indicates that the latter does not require written notice; notice to pleader is notice to party under Order III Rule 5 CPC. Held that communication of the information that an award has been filed amounts to giving notice under Section 14(2) (Paras 16-19). B) Limitation - Commencement of Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Service of Notice Under Article 158 - Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Article 158 - The expression 'date of service of notice' includes oral communication and constructive notice; no formal written notice is required; limitation begins to run from the date the party or pleader is informed of filing; full knowledge of filing bars subsequent challenge. Held that because pleaders were informed on February 21, 1948, limitation began then, and objections filed later were time-barred (Paras 13-15, 21-22). C) Arbitration - Appeal Against Order Filing Award - Refusal to Set Aside Award - Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 39(1)(vi) - Where no application or objection praying for setting aside the award was made before the court, there is no question of refusing to set it aside; consequently, no appeal is maintainable under Section 39(1)(vi). Held that the High Court correctly dismissed the appeal as incompetent because the Civil Judge had not refused to set aside the award (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of limitation for an application to set aside an arbitration award under Article 158 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 begins to run only from service of a written notice of filing the award, and whether the court's order filing the award and drawing a decree amounts to a refusal to set aside the award making an appeal maintainable under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the communication by the court to the parties or their counsel that an award had been filed was sufficient compliance with Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940; the notice need not be in writing and oral intimation to pleaders on February 21, 1948 constituted valid service for purposes of Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908, so objections filed later were time-barred. The Court further held that since no objection praying for setting aside the award was made before the Civil Judge, the order filing the award did not amount to a refusal to set it aside, and no appeal was maintainable under Section 39(1)(vi).
Law Points
- Notice under Section 14(2) Arbitration Act
- 1940 need not be in writing
- oral intimation to parties or pleaders is sufficient
- Notice to pleader is notice to party under Order III Rule 5 CPC
- Service of notice under Article 158 Limitation Act includes constructive or informal notice
- Period of limitation for setting aside award runs from date of oral intimation of filing
- Order filing award and drawing decree when no application to set aside award made does not amount to refusal under Section 39(1)(vi) Arbitration Act
