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