Supreme Court Rules, Serve Award upon Party not Advocate In the decision of the Supreme Court, Benarsi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd delivered on September 21, 2012, which was a Special Leave Petition (SLP) the specific question was whether an Award served on a party’s counsel / advocate would amount to good service within the meaning of Section 31 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.. Section 31(5) provides that after an Award has been made a signed copy will be delivered to each party. The question before the Hon’ble court was as to whether the word “party” would mean to include an advocate of the party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on its previous decision of Union of India (UOI) v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors and held, "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(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." The Court in this case also observed that as one having complete knowledge of the proceeding, a party would be in the best position to determine whether any applications for correction or setting aside need to be made.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:35:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015