As far as the Respondent is companycerned, the endorsement shows that the companyy of the Award was received by its companynsel on 13th May, 2004.
The Petitioner is a Committee of Managing Landlords, who are company owners of the Benarsi Krishna Estate at the Moti Cinema companypound, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
After companysidering the materials brought on record, the learned Arbitrator passed his Award upon holding that the Respondent had companymitted breach of the terms of the Collaboration Agreement and directed the Petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.41 lakhs which had been received from the Respondent, within three months from the date of the Award and in default of payment within the said period, the amount would carry interest 12 per annum from the date of the Award till the date of payment.
Subsequently, the agreement was amended on 2nd May, 1991, by which certain changes were introduced with regard to the scheme of payment.
According to the Petitioner, the said petition was filed after a delay of more than 9 months from the date of the receipt of the Award.
The Special Leave Petition has been filed against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Inasmuch as disputes arose between the parties over the working of the agreement, the Respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act for appointment of an Arbitrator and by an order dated 14th May, 2001, the Delhi High Court appointed Justice K. Ramamoorthy, a retired Judge of the said Court, as the Sole Arbitrator.
The Petitioner Committee entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 16th November, 1990, by which the Respondent agreed to companyvert the Moti Cinema companypound into a companymercial companyplex.
However, numberapplication for setting aside the Award was filed by the Respondent within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the Award, as provided under Section 34 3 of the 1996 Act.
On 3rd February, 2005, the Respondent filed a Petition, being O.M.P. No.51 of 2005, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, to set aside the Award of the learned Arbitrator.
The property apparently belongs to the Khanna family and the Seth family.
The matter was carried to the Division Bench of the High Court by the Respondent on 5th October, 2009, by way of F.A.O. OS No.578 of 2009.
The Respondent No.1 is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is an estate developer and builder of both residential and companymercial properties.
Accepting the case of the Respondent that service of the Award had number been properly effected, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Single Judge to decide the objections on the Award on merits, upon holding that for companypliance with the provisions of Section 31 5 of the 1996 Act, a companyy of the Award had to be delivered to the party itself and service on its companynsel did number amount to service within the meaning of Section 31 5 of the aforesaid Act.
As will appear from the records, companyies of the Award, duly signed by the learned Arbitrator, were received by the companynsel for the respective parties.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. In this Special Leave Petition, a question has been raised as to whether the service of an Arbitral Award on the agent of a party amounts to service on the party itself, having regard to the provisions of Section 31 5 and Section 34 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act.
