T RAJAN Vs. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in Arbitration OP No. 287/2005. He filed an application under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') to set aside the arbitral award after 137 days of delay. The award was received by the appellant on 20/03/2005. S.34(3) of the act reads as follows:

(2.) In the appeal a totally opposite contention was taken that appeal itself is premature, as award was not delivered to him by the Arbitrator as prescribed in the statute. Time under S.34(3) will run only after proper receipt of the award. According to the counsel for the appellant, the award was not delivered to the appellant directly by the Arbitrator. But award was delivered through the National Stock Exchange. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Thomas Mathan v. Joseph Thomas (1969 ILR (Kerala) 607) wherein it was held that the provision regarding giving of notice is a mandatory duty of the Court under S.14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Supreme Court in Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti, AIR 1962 SC 666 ( 1962 (2) SCR 551 : 1962 (1) MLJ (SC) 263 : 64 Bom LR 412) held that it is not enough for the Court to send the notice to the lawyer. Notice should be sent to the party as per the provisions of S.14(1) which is mandatory. There is clear difference between the terminology of words used under S.14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Here the application was filed under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the appellant received the signed copy of the award with delay condonation petition. S.31(5) of the Act casts an obligation to deliver signed copy of the award to the party. S.31(5) reads as follows: