UNION OF INDIA Vs. BALAJI BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein was the first defendant in OS No. 2494 of 1985 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. THE first respondent herein was the plaintiff and the second respondent herein was the second defendant in that suit. In this order the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the plaint. It appears that the plaintiff and the first defendant were parties to a contract. It also appears that there had been a breach of the terms of the said contract. THErefore, the dispute was referred to an arbitrator, who was the second defendant in that suit. THE arbitrator went into the matter and passed an award on 22-2-1985. THEreafter the plaintiff filed the present suit before the lower court and the reliefs which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case and contained therein are extracted hereunder:

(2.) I heard Mr. Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. K. Gunasekaran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner notice regarding the filing of the award of be issued by the court to the parties concerned as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act is a mandatory requirement and unless such notice is issued, the proceedings before the lower court to pass a decree in terms of the award would be without jurisdiction. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that only after the issue of such notice to him and from the date of receipt of such notice, the period of limitation of 30 days starts running and hence the first defendant cannot be blamed in the eye of law for not taking any steps either to set aside the award and remit it back or for any other relief connected therewith. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further added that the learned trial Judge had completely overlooked the statutory requirement as referred to above and thus erred in law in decreeing the suit. Opposing these submissions, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the first defendant participated in the proceedings right from the date of serving of the summons and therefore he is deemed to have knowledge about the filing of the award before the court. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent if this position is accepted, then the failure on the part of the first defendant to take any appropriate action within a period of 30 days in challenging that award would automatically result in the decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff.