PANDIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pandit Construction Company (hereinafter described as the petitioner) has filed the present petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act asserting that respondents 1 and 2 had awarded the work titled Construction of 13 Nos. type E and 1 no. Type F quarters for MDI at Gurgaon Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Certain disputes arose between the parties and were referred to the sole arbitrator respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 entered upon the reference on 24/10/1991 and time for making and publishing the award was extended by mutual consent of the parties. The arbitrator had published the award on 28/12/1993. It is claimed that the award should be allowed to be filed and decree in terms of the award may be passed.

(2.) Objections have been filed alleging that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and that the award suffers from various infirmities. There are errors apparent on the face of the record. The objector claims that the arbitrator has totally ignored the material on the record. Along with the objection an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. It has been asserted that notice of filing of the award was filed on 9/1/1995. The said department was closed and directions had been issued to the Executive Engineer to hand over all. the concerned records to the other department. The records were voluminous and in bulk. Shifting of the same took long time. The file was traced only when the counsel informed the respondent of the next date of hearing i.e. 25/4/1995. On coming to know of this fact objections were prepared but the objector was told that it is barred by time. It is claimed that in these circumstances delay in filing the objections may be condoned.

(3.) In the reply filed the assertions of the objector have been controverted and it is denied that there are any just or sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. As per the petitioner, once notice was served upon the respondents on 9/1/1995 the respondents were aware of the statutory period and therefore objections should have been filed within time. On merits of the objections it is denied that the arbitrator has misconducted himself or that has passed an award which is erroneous.