SIDDAGANGAIAH G S Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore, made on i.a.i. in appeal No. 749/76 on its file. I. A. I. Was an application for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal on the ground that the petitioner/appellant was entitled to exclude from the period of limitation the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the order passed by the arbitrator under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959.

(2.) the tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was present before the arbitrator when the award was pronounced openly as required under clause (1) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 31 of the Karnataka co-operative societies rules and therefore the period of limitation commenced to run against the petitioner/appellant from the date of pronouncement of the award by the arbitrator. Therefore the present writ petition.

(3.) in w. P. No. 9156/86 I have considered a number of decided cases on the point now urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The supreme court in the case of Raja Harischandra Raj Singh V. The deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another [air 1961 SC 1500], has taken the view that the element of fair play contemplated in computing the period of limitation, in a case like this, could be satisfied if the person suffering an award had constructive knowledge of the contents of the award and such constructive knowledge of the award are attributable to him if he or his representative was present when the award was pronounced in open court or in a tribunal etc.