Service of Arbitration Award — On Advocate — Not proper service — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(5), S. 2(4).

[Karmyogi Shelters P.
Ltd. v. Benarsi Krishna Committee & Ors., AIR 2010 Del. 156]

The petition u/s.34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been filed which was barred by time
and hence was dismissed. It was admitted fact that the Award had been made
available to the counsel for the appellant, and had not been directly served on
the appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition as being
time-barred. On further appeal it was observed that if an action has to be taken
in a particular manner it must be in that manner only, else will be held not to
have been done at all. The Court observed that so much judicial time had been
wasted in entertaining arguments which would have been unnecessary, had the
Award been served on the party concerned, namely, the appellant. In view of S.
2(h) of the Act, there was no justifiable reason to depart from succinct and
precise definition of the word ‘party’, which means a party to an arbitration
agreement. Factually, these words cannot take within their sweep an ‘agent’ of
the party which is incompetent to take the requisite action envisaged under the
statute.

In these circumstances, the
view of the learned Single Judge that service of the Award on the Advocate of
the appellant was sufficient compliance with the statutory provision could not
be sustained and was set aside.