MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. UNIBROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr Madan Bhatia, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has raised the preliminary objection that the objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 are not filed within the prescribed time provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) The main contentions of the learned senior counsel is that the objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old Act) are not maintainable as the said Act does not apply. The said objections which were filed under Section 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot be entertained under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (New Act) as the scope and jurisdiction of two set of provisions are entirely different. The objections were not filed within the prescribed time as per the mandatory provision which provides that "recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside the award".

(3.) The other contention is that this Court has no inherent jurisdiction to treat the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Old Act, 1940 as a petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. It is stated that even if the objections are treated as a petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, none of the conditions prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is attracted on merit. Therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the same have not been filed within three months of the receipt of the award by the petitioner and the same are time barred as the copy of the award was received by the objector in January 2001 and the objections were filed on 05.09.2001.