Union Of India vs M/S. R.K. Steel Industries
2010 Latest Caselaw 420 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CS(OS) No.510A/2001

                                                         25th January, 2010

UNION OF INDIA                                           ...Petitioner

                            Through:       Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with
                                           Ms. Jagrati Singh, Advocate.
              VERSUS

M/S. R.K. STEEL INDUSTRIES                               ....Respondent

                            Through:       Mr. Shiv Khorana, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

    %                              JUDGMENT (ORAL)

VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J

1. This is the petition under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940

filed by the Union of India as petitioner on 20.2.2001. By the petition, the

petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"1. Allot suit No. to award filed by the arbitrator in the year 1993 & make the award dated 30.9.92 passed in Arbitration case No. RN 72-B/92 (old case no.R 89-B/89) filed before this Hon'ble High Court, rule of the Court."

2. Mr. Khorana, on behalf of the respondent, has raised a preliminary

objection that the petition under Section 17 is barred by limitation. Mr.

CS(OS) No. 510A/2001 Page 1 Khorana contends that in the present case, the limitation for filing of the

Award in the Court by the Arbitrator under Article 119(a) is governed by

Limitation Act, 1963, in that where the party to an Award receives notice of

making the Award and the said party does not approach the Court by means

of a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and on

receipt of a notice of making of an Award simply requests the Arbitrator to

file the Award in Court, then, the Arbitrator has also to file the Award

within 30 days of the receipt of the notice by the party of making of the

Award . Mr. Khorana contends that the notice of the making of the Award

was received by Union of India on 24.11.1992 and therefore under Article

119(a), either the petition should have been filed within 30 days from

24.11.1992, and the same has been filed much later on 20.2.2001, or in any

case Mr. Khorana contends that if the Award is taken to have been suo moto

filed by the Arbitrator, then, it ought to have been filed within 30 days from

24.11.1992, the date when the petitioner received notice of making of the

Award. Mr. Khorana contends that when the Arbitrator files an Award after

a party has received notice of making of the Award and the Award is filed

pursuant to a private notice, by a party to the Arbitrator, for filing of the

Award, then, such filing of the Award by the Arbitrator is governed by

Article 119(a), and the same had to be filed within 30 days of receipt of the

notice of making of the Award to such party.

CS(OS) No. 510A/2001 Page 2

3. The preliminary issue, therefore, to be decided by this Court, is

whether the present petition is barred by limitation as having been filed

beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 119(a) or that even

if the original filing of the Award by the Arbitrator is treated as a petition

under Sections 14/17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 even then such filing is

barred by limitation because it is filed after 30 days after 24.11.1992.

4. The admitted facts which appear therefore are : the Award is dated

30.9.1992 and the Union of India/petitioner received notice of making of

the Award on 24.11.1992. The petition, therefore, of Union of India under

Sections 14/17, Arbitration Act, therefore, had to be within 30 days from

24.11.1992, but the petition is filed on 20.2.2001 i.e. not within 30 days

from 24.11.1992 but almost 10 years later. If the limitation is taken for

filing of the Award by the Arbitrator in the Court, then, the same again

ought to have been filed within 30 days from 24.11.1992 because the

limitation under Article 119(a) cannot be extended beyond 30 days from

24.11.1992 merely because the Arbitrator has filed the Award, inasmuch as

the Award has not been filed suo moto, but, the Award has been filed in the

Court pursuant to a request dated 10.3.1993 of the Union of India to the

Arbitrator to file the Award in the Court i.e. as an agent of the Union of

India.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three judgments of three

different Learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Union of India

CS(OS) No. 510A/2001 Page 3 Vs. Rajesh Kumar 2002(65)DRJ 217, an unreported judgment in CS(OS)

No.2441/93 dated 27.4.2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Vidarbha

Paper Mills Ltd and Union of India Vs. Chadha Engineering Works

2009(2)Arb. LR 316. In all these judgments, the Single Judges of this Court

have adopted the view that when the Arbitrator files the Award on the

request of a party then such filing has to be within 30 days of a party to

arbitration receiving notice of the making of the Award.

6. In view of the above-said three judgments and the facts of the case, it

is quite clear that the present petition which is filed in 2001 for an Award

which was made on 30.9.1992 is barred by limitation and even if we treat

the filing of the Award by the Arbitrator after 10.3.1993 (the date of filing of

the Award in this Court being not very clear) even then such filing after

10.3.1993 is much beyond 30 days of limitation which commenced on

24.11.1992. Looking at the issue from any point of view, therefore, this

petition either of the Union of India seeking filing of the Award or of the

Arbitrator suo moto having filed the Award, is time barred and therefore

dismissed as such, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

                                              VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J


January 25, 2010
Ne



CS(OS) No. 510A/2001                                                          Page 4