SATEESH BHIMARAO KAMBLE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal questions the legal propriety and correctness of the decision of the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, delivered on 17.12.2007, whereby the appellant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be dismissed and consequently the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the A & C Act) was held not to survive for further consideration. The facts germane for the present purposes are that the sole Arbitrator had by the Award dated 20-04-2006 dismissed the claim of the Appellant for enhancement of the cost of the building and site by Rs. 24 lakhs. The appellant was dissatisfied with this decision of the Arbitrator, but ill-advisedly filed W.P. No. 7254/2006 praying for the quashing of the said award dated 20.04.2006. This petition came to be dismissed on 22nd September, 2006 holding that recourse should have been taken to Section 34 of the A & C Act. The dismissal of the writ petition was without prejudice to the right to seek remedy under Section 34 of the A&C Act, which if initiated was to be considered in accordance with law and the period expended in pursuing the writ petition was to be taken note of in those proceedings.

(2.) Section 34 of the A&C Act postulates the filing of an application for setting aside an arbitral award and prescribes that such action may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application has received the arbitral award; provided that the Court is empowered to entertain such an application within a further period of 30 days, but not thereafter. In other words, even if sufficient cause is shown with regard to the cause of the delay in approaching the Court under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the Court is powerless to condone it after three months and 30 days have elapsed since the service of the arbitral award on the party desirous of opposing it. It must immediately be underscored that Section 5 of the Limitation Act also contains a power to admit an application/appeal after the prescribed period, if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the said period, but in contradistinction to Section 34 of the A&C Act, prescribes no outer limit for the delayed filing of the application.

(3.) It cannot be controverted that since the arbitral award was pronounced on 20-04-2006, the appellant had a statutory right to file objections on or before 19th July, 2006. Thereafter, the appellant could have sought condonation of delay, if sufficient cause had been disclosed, for a period of 30 days i.e. only till 18th August, 2006. However, the application/objections to the arbitral award came to be filed on 30.11.2006 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. If the writ petition had not been filed, this filing would unquestionably and necessarily have to be dismissed as being barred by time.