LACHHMAN DASS Vs. VEER FINANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Mr. S.C. Ahuja, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 17th November, 1970. It raises an interesting point pertaining to the question of limitation under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (to be referred to in short as "the Act") read with Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(2.) THE facts and dates arc not disputed. On 4th October, 1965, M/s. Veer Finance Co., respondent No. I, filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act. On 10th November, 1965, the arbitrator filed the award. Notices were issued on various dates but were not served on the appellant. THE case wa adjourned from time to lime but service could not be effected. THEreafter, the court ordered substituted service on, inter alia, the appellant. It ordered that service be effected by publication in "Ekta Sandesh". THE publication having been made, the court passed a decree ex parte in terms of the award, on 13th May, 1966.

(3.) ALTERNATIVELY he argues that, even assuming, that in the present case, he did not have to wait for the setting aside of the ex parte decree and no notice under Section 14 of the Act was necessary, then his application dated 13th January, 1967 under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code which pertained to Sections 30 and 33 of the Act as well, is a composite application and should be also treated as his objections. This, admittedly, is in time.