STATE OF J&K AND Vs. NEW STAR CRUSHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein entered into an agreement with the respondent whereby the respondent was required to execute certain work contracts. It appears, certain dispute arose in regard to the payment of dues and, therefore, the respondent filed an application u/s. 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The application was allowed on 7.10.1993 and a Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jammu and Kashmir, was appointed as an arbitrator. Before the arbitrator, the appellants appeared and were granted a number of opportunities to file objections to the claims of the respondent or counterclaim, but they did not do so. Ultimately, the arbitrator gave his award on 16.5.1994, which was filed in the Court on 24.5.1994, for being made the rule of the Court. It is relevant to mention that on that day, Gulam Mustaffa, Advocate, who was the counsel for the appellants, was present in the Court. Along with him, also present was Mr A. Kotwal, Standing Counsel for the Department concerned.

(2.) The Court, while issuing notice on the said application, served it on the counsel present in the Court. Despite notice, objections were not filed by the appellants within the stipulated time. Subsequently, time for filing objections was also extended up to 28.9.1994, although the same was not permissible in law. Surprisingly, even after extension of time, objections were not filed. On 25.10.1994, an objection was filed on behalf of the appellants. The said objection was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the objection was filed beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred letters patent appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said appeals against which the appellants are here before us by means of special leave petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that these appeals deserve to be allowed on the short ground that the appellants had no notice before the learned Single Judge before whom the award was filed for making it a rule of the Court. We do not find any merit in the contention. It is not disputed that Gulam Mustaffa was an advocate before the arbitrator. It is brought on record that Gulam Mustaffa was present on the date when the award was filed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and accepted the said notice. He also filed his vakalatnama before the Deputy Registrar of the High Court on 16.5.1994. It is also relevant to mention here that Shri A. Kotwal, who is the Standing Counsel for the Department concerned, was also present when the notice was issued for making the award rule of the Court. Furthermore, the High Court has also considered the merit of the submissions raised by the appellants and found no merit therein. For the aforesaid reason, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellants did have notice of the petitions filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge for the award being made rule of the Court.