Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Acts
  • Arts. 158 and 178 of the Indian Limitation Act. Article 178
  • Section 14 provides in sub-s. (1)
  • s. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act,
  • ARBITRATION ACT 1940
  • s. 31 of the Arbitration Act
  • r. 13 of the Rules
  • Section 14(2)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Acts
  • Arts. 158 and 178 of the Indian Limitation Act. Article 178
  • Section 14 provides in sub-s. (1)
  • s. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act,
  • ARBITRATION ACT 1940
  • s. 31 of the Arbitration Act
  • r. 13 of the Rules
  • Section 14(2)
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application for setting aside an arbitration award. The award was made on 19 May 1942 and the present application to set aside that award was filed on 1 August 1942. A preliminary point was taken by the respondents that the application was misconceived because the award had not been filed in Court and therefore was not before the Court.

It was contended that the award could not now be filed because Articles 158 and 178 of the Indian Limitation Act limited the time for (a) making an application to have the award filed in Court to 90 days from service of notice of the making of the award (Art. 178) and (b) instituting an application to set aside an award to 30 days from service of notice of the filing of the award (Art. 158). The notice of the making of the award was served on or about 19 May 1942 and ninety days had elapsed.

It was, however, noted that the arbitrators may have the power to file the award by forwarding it under sealed cover to the Registrar under r.13 of the Rules of the Original Side made under s.44 of the Arbitration Act. The applicant's counsel argued that the Court had power under s.31 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award.

The Court considered authority from the Bombay High Court and the scheme of the Arbitration Act in determining whether an application to set aside an award may be entertained before the award has been filed in Court.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an application to set aside an arbitration award can be entertained by the Court before the award has been filed in Court.
  2. Whether the limitation provisions (Arts. 158 and 178 of the Indian Limitation Act) preclude the filing of the award and thereby prevent any application to set aside the award.
  3. Whether the arbitrators have the power to file the award in Court under r.13 of the Rules so as to enable subsequent proceedings in Court.
  4. Whether s.31 of the Arbitration Act empowers the Court to set aside an award even if the award has not been filed in Court (interpretation of "may be filed").

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

  • The application is misconceived because the award has not been filed in Court and therefore is not before the Court.
  • It was contended that the award cannot now be filed owing to Articles 158 and 178 of the Indian Limitation Act (Art. 178: 90 days from service of notice of making of award to apply for filing; Art. 158: 30 days from service of notice of filing to apply to set aside).

Applicant's Arguments

  • Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court has power under s.31 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award, relying on the words "may be filed" in s.31(2) to suggest that the Court could deal with questions regarding the validity of an award even if the award has not been filed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Ratanji Virpal & Co. v. Dhirajlal Manilal Under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, until the award has been filed in Court it is not competent to a party to an arbitration to file a petition to set aside the award; where necessary the party may proceed under s.14(2) to have the award filed in Court. The Court followed this authority, adopting the conclusion that an application to set aside an award is not competent until the award has been filed, and dismissed the present application.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by addressing the respondents' preliminary point that the award had not been filed and therefore the application to set it aside was misconceived. The Court considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ratanji Virpal & Co. v. Dhirajlal Manilal and treated that authority as relevant to the present question.

The Court examined the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It observed that the Act contemplates that questions regarding validity, effect or existence of an award are to be decided by the Court in which the award has been or may be filed (s.31(2)), but interpreted s.31 as a jurisdiction-defining provision rather than an enabling provision conferring power to decide such questions in the absence of filing. Emphasis was placed on the distinction between defining which Court has jurisdiction and providing a substantive enabling remedy.

The Court analysed s.14(1) and s.14(2) which require that, once the arbitrators have made and signed the award and given written notice to the parties, they shall, at the request of the parties or if so directed by the Court, cause the award to be filed in Court; and that "the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award." The Court regarded those words as important indicia that the Court takes seisin of the award only once it is actually filed and not before.

The Court further explained policy considerations: arbitration proceedings involve a tribunal selected by the parties and the Court should not interfere with the arbitrators' decision until the legislative procedure for filing the award has been followed and the Court has been put in a position to consider questions connected with the award. Although limitation provisions were relied upon to argue that the award could not now be filed, the Court noted that arbitrators may have the procedural power under r.13 to forward the award for filing.

Having considered the statutory scheme and the Bombay High Court authority, the Court concluded that it is not competent to apply to set aside an award until the award has been filed in Court.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application to set aside the award is DISMISSED (with costs).

Implications:

  • The direct effect of the decision is that an application to set aside an arbitration award cannot be entertained by the Court until the award has been filed in Court.
  • The Court followed the Bombay High Court's conclusion on this point and applied the statutory scheme (notably s.14 and s.31 of the Arbitration Act) to justify the dismissal. The opinion does not articulate any broader novel precedent beyond adopting that conclusion in the present case.

Attorneys: Applicant: M.G. Poddar; Respondent: C.C. Bosu.

    Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Jewraj Heeralal

    McNair, J.:— This is an application for setting aside an award. The award in question was made on May 19, 1942, and the application to set aside that award was made on August 1, 1942.

    A preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the application is misconceived because the award has not been filed and is not before the Court.

    The question now before me was raised in the Bombay High Court in the case of Ratanji Virpal & Co. v. Dhirajlal Manilal. The head note of that case is as follows:—

    Under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, till the award has been filed in Court, it is not competent to a party to an arbitration to file a petition to set aside the award. In cases where it is necessary to have the validity of an award ascertained and the award has, not been filed in Court, it is open to a party to the arbitration to proceed under s. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, to have the award filed in Court.

    It is clear that, under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the validity of an arbitration agreement or an award can only be challenged by means of an application. Under the previous Act it was considered possible to challenge the validity of an award by means of a suit. Section 32 of the 1940 Act provides that no suit shall lie for the challenging of an arbitration agreement or an award.

    There is no doubt that the award in the present application has not been filed and it is contended that the award cannot now be filed owing to the amended Arts. 158 and 178 of the Indian Limitation Act. Article 178 provides a period of ninety days from the date of service of notice of the making of the award within which an application may be made for the filing in Court of the award. Article 158 provides that an application to set aside an award must be made within thirty days of the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award. The award has been made, and the notice of the making of the award was served on or about the 19th May 1942. Ninety days have elapsed since the date of service of the notice, and it is argued that under Art. 178 no application can now be made for the filing of the award. It follows that no application can now be made to set aside the award.

    It is pointed out, however, that the arbitrators have the power to file the award by forwarding it under a sealed cover to the Registrar with a letter of request that the award be filed. This is provided under r. 13 of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court made under s. 44 of the Arbitration Act.

    Learned counsel on-behalf of the petitioner argues that the Court has power under s. 31 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award.

    Section 31(2) provides, so far as is material, that all questions regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award shall, be decided by the Court in which the award has been or may be filed and by no other Court. Stress is laid on the words “may be filed” and it is argued that the arbitrators still have the power to file the award without making any substantive application. In my opinion, s. 31 is not an enabling section, but a section which merely defines the jurisdiction. The marginal note refers to jurisdiction and the entire s. 31, including sub-s. (2), defines the particular Court or Courts which may deal with questions regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award, that is to say, this Court is given jurisdiction to deal with those questions because this Court is a Court in which the award may be filed.

    The scheme of the Act appears to me to contemplate the consideration of an award by the Court only when the award has actually been filed, in Court. Section 14 provides in sub-s. (1) that when the arbitrators or umpires have made their award, they shall sign it and give notice in writing to the parties. Sub-s. (2) provides that they shall, at the request of the parties, or if so directed by the Court, upon payment of fees and costs, cause the award to be filed in Court. Section 14(2) then provides:—

    and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.

    Those words appear to me to be important as indicating that it is only when the award has been filed in Court that the Court takes seisin of the award and informs the parties that it is prepared to consider any questions connected with the award.

    It must be remembered that arbitration proceedings are proceedings whereby the parties select their own tribunal. The Court may, on application, interfere in the course of arbitration proceedings within the limits prescribed by the legislature, but the award is the decision of the tribunal which the parties themselves have selected and until it is filed in Court the intention of the legislature appears to be that the Court should not interfere. Once the award has been made, it may be impossible or difficult to enforce its terms or correct injustice and it is then that the award is filed in Court in order to enable the parties to obtain satisfaction through the machinery of the Court.

    The question has been considered in some detail by the Bombay High Court in the case to which I have already referred. There the learned Judge held it is not competent to apply to set aside an award till the award has been filed. On a consideration of the scheme of the Arbitration Act, I have arrived at the same conclusion and this application must be dismissed with costs.

    Attorney for applicant: M.G Poddar.

    Attorney for respondent: C.C Bosu.

    S.M
    Application dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Jewraj Heeralal
    (Mar 2, 1943)