Discusses interpretation of notice requirements and limitation periods in arbitration, relevant to procedural law and dispute resolution.

sketch of the Supreme Court of India
Case
KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI (RANI) M/S S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION v. UNION OF INDIA (Supreme Court of India, 03-01-2025)
Law
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Limitation Act.
  • Arbitration Act, 1940: The judgment extensively discusses Sections 14 and 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940. Regarding Section 14, the court interprets Section 14(2), which requires the court to give notice of the filing of the award to the parties. The court opines that the "precise form" of notice is unspecified, but it requires the parties to "come to know about the existence of the award". The court refers to Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti, holding that communication of information may not necessarily take the form of a formal notice. The court also refers to Ch. Ramalinga Reddy v. Superintending Engineer, noting that while Section 14(1) requires a written notice, Section 14(2) does not. The court also refers to Food Corporation of India v. E. Kuttappan, stating that communication of the filing of an award to the parties' pleaders was taken to be sufficient notice for Section 14(2). The court also refers to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v C.K. Ahuja, stating that the provision requires that parties simply become aware of the filing of the award. Regarding Section 17, the court notes that the appellant filed an application under Section 17 of the Act on 10.11.2022, seeking pronouncement of judgment according to the arbitral award. The court also discusses Section 38, noting that the appellant filed an application under Section 38 seeking a direction to the respondents to clear its part of the arbitrator's fees.
  • Limitation Act, 1963: The judgment discusses Article 119(b) of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs the limitation period for filing objections to an award under Arbitration Act, 1940. The court notes that the limitation period is 30 days and the trigger for the limitation to start running is "the date of service of notice of the filing of the award". The High Court also referred to Article 119 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment mentions Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which the appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court.