http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

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