Delhi High Court
Monsher Ent. vs Iaai And Anr. on 8 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.17/1991
% 8th September, 2016
MONSHER ENT. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
with Mr. Arbaaz Hussain, Advocate.
versus
IAAI AND ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. S.K. Chandwani, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Review Petition No.462/2015
1. On 10.8.2015, the corrected Award dated 22.3.2012 was made a
Rule of the Court noticing that no objections have been filed by the
plaintiff/petitioner to the Award and as required to be done within 30 days as
per Article 119 (b) of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Order
dated 10.8.2015 reads as under:-
"1. There is a very limited issue before this Court with respect to
correction of the Award dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Arbitrator after the
remand, and which correction is that the Award is said to be a Nil Award but
Claim No. 6 has been allowed for an amount of Rs.33,659/- I may note that
none of the parties have filed any objections to the Award.
2. Accordingly, the Award dated 22.3.2012 is corrected whereby where
in the final portion, it is written as Nil Award, the same will be treated as an
Award with respect to sums as otherwise granted by the Award, including with
respect to Claim No. 6 for a sum of Rs.33,659/-
RP No. 462/2015 in CS(OS) 17/1991 Page 1 of 4
3. Petition is disposed of accordingly noting that since the Arbitrator has
not awarded interest, this Court also does not feel need to exercise its discretion
to grant any interest more so because defendants have already paid under
Claim No. 6 to the plaintiff. Award is made Rule of the Court with the
aforesaid observations."
2. By this review petition filed under Section 114 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), plaintiff/petitioner states that it was never served
any notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 of the filing of the
Award for the period of limitation of 30 days to commence under Article 119
(b) of the Limitation Act. By referring to the record of this Court, it is argued
that the Order of the Joint Registrar dated 27.5.2014 wrongly records that
petitioner/plaintiff was served but is not present whereas for 27.5.2014 only
the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was served. It is also argued that notice
received by the petitioner/plaintiff thereafter pursuant to an Order of the
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.8.2014 was only a court notice and
not a notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 of the filing of
the Award, and therefore, on receipt of only a court notice the limitation under
Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act did not commence.
3. I have gone through the record. It is seen that the Joint Registrar
has wrongly recorded on 27.5.2014 that petitioner/plaintiff is served whereas
service report for 27.5.2014 in the miscellaneous file shows that it was the
respondent no.1/defendant no.1 which was served and not the
petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter petitioner/plaintiff appeared only pursuant to
service on 26.5.2015 but that appearance was only pursuant to the court notice
issued originally by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.8.2014 and
reissued thereafter on various dates and ultimately for 26.5.2015 when the
petitioner/plaintiff was served of the court notice. In law, unless a person who
wants to object to the Award is specifically served with a notice of filing of the
Award as required by the third column of Article 119 (b) of the Schedule of
the Limitation Act, the period of 30 days of limitation cannot begin to run for
filing of objections. There are serious consequences of not filing objections
within 30 days of receipt of the notice of filing of the Award, inasmuch as
Award can thereafter be made Rule of the Court in the absence of the
objections having been filed. Therefore, parties have to be necessarily served
with the specific notice of filing of the Award for the limitation of 30 days to
commence under Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act.
4. Since in the present case, admittedly the petitioner/plaintiff has
never been served of notice of filing of the Award dated 22.3.2012, the Order
of this Court dated 10.8.2015 wrongly records that none of the parties have
filed objections and which is on the faulty premise that petitioner/plaintiff has
received notice of filing of the Award, and which as stated above is factually
not correct.
5. In view of the above, this review petition is allowed and the Order
dated 10.8.2015 making the Award a Rule of the Court is set aside, however,
by this order notice is issued under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940
to the petitioner/plaintiff to file objections to the Award.
Review petition stands disposed of.
+CS(OS) No.17/1991 and I.A. No.21013/2015 (under Sections 30 and 33 of
Arbitration Act, 1940)
6. Notice of filing of the Award is accepted by the counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff. The objections be filed in accordance with law.
7. At this stage, it is stated that objections have already been filed by
the petitioner/plaintiff on 18.9.2015 and have been registered as I.A.
No.21013/2015.
8. Accordingly, let respondent no.1/defendant no.1 file reply to the
objections within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit thereto, if any, be filed within
four weeks thereafter.
9. List before the Roster Bench after obtaining orders of Hon'ble the
Chief Justice on 25th November, 2016.
I.A. No.21014/2015 (condonation of delay of 85 days in filing objections)
10. This application is unnecessary in view of the above said order
passed today and therefore is disposed of as not necessary.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
