Published on: January 4, 2024 at 10:45 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Court: Benarsi Krishna Committee V. Karmyogi Shelters (P) Ltd. (2012)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that in order to constitute an effective service, a copy of an Award is to be delivered to a person who has the knowledge and is the best person to understand and appreciate an Award and to take decision for its challenge. It is held that the Court while calculating the date of service for the purposes of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has held that the date of receipt by the person incharge and not the date of receipt/acknowledgement by the “inward clerk” at the office will be the date for the purposes of calculating limitation.
It is held that an advocate to act on behalf of a party to a proceeding in the proceedings itself, which cannot stand satisfied where a provision such as Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
15. Having taken note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and having particular regard to the expression “party” as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the 1996 Act read with the provisions of Sections 31(5) and 34(3) of the 1996 Act, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision [Karmyogi Shelters (P) Ltd. v. Benarsi Krishna Committee, AIR 2010 Del 156] of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court impugned in these proceedings.
The expression “party” has been amply dealt with in Tecco Trichy Engineers case [(2005) 4 SCC 239] and also in ARK Builders (P) Ltd. case [(2011) 4 SCC 616 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 413] , referred to hereinabove. It is one thing for an advocate to act and plead on behalf of a party in a proceeding and it is another for an advocate to act as the party himself. ‘
The expression “party”, as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the 1996 Act, clearly indicates a person who is a party to an arbitration agreement. The said definition is not qualified in any way so as to include the agent of the party to such agreement. Any reference, therefore, made in Section 31(5) and Section 34(2) of the 1996 Act can only mean the party himself and not his or her agent, or advocate empowered to act on the basis of a vakalatnama.
In such circumstances, proper compliance with Section 31(5) would mean delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award on the party himself and not on his advocate, which gives the party concerned the right to proceed under Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra