BABU RAM GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments were addressed at length on this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the Respondent, Union of India, for condonation of the delay in filing objections against the Award dated 28th December, 1995. There is some controversy revolving around a so-called Second Award dated 12th February, 1996. The contention of the Petitioner in this regard is that the Arbitrator had only corrected an arithmetical mistake and that the Respondent has raised this illusion of a Second Award merely to side-track the non-filing of objections within the period contemplated by law. In the view that I have taken, this issue does not fall for determination at this juncture.

(2.) Suit No.146A/1996 was initiated by the Petitioner by way of a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. It was prayed therein that Defendant No.2, Shri S.S. Juneja, the Arbitrator, be directed to file the original Award and proceedings in this Court. Notice was ordered on 16th January, 1996. On 1st February, 1996 the Award and connected proceedings were filed in Court and notice thereof was ordered to issue to Respondent No.1. It has been alleged by the Respondents that the Executive Engineer, NSGP, Division No. VI CPWD, Manesar, Gurgaon, was the person dealing with this contract and with the arbitration proceedings. But no notice was served on him. This officer is stated to have come to know of the filing of the Award only on 10th April, 1996 and immediately thereafter, on 16th April, 1996, he filed the objections along with the present Application. Unfortunately the Respondent has deliberately failed to mention the date on which the Union of India was served in these proceedings. The Petitioner has, quite expectedly belaboured this failure, tarnishing it with deliberation and mala fides. It would have undoubtedly constituted sufficient reason for rejecting the application, had I favoured the view that the array of parties, viz-a-viz the Respondents, was correctly cast.

(3.) The objections have been palpably filed beyond limitation. The Union of India, Respondent No. 1 has, however, been arrayed in the following manner : Union of India through the Superintending Engineer, NSGP, CPWD, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is also not disputed that the Superintending Engineer was not directly involved with the disputes inter see the parties before the Court.