KANWALJEET KAUR BEDI Vs. ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by Sh. P.L. Joshi, the sole Arbitrator in the matter. Along with the objections, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34(3) read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of about 11 months in filing the petition for setting aside the Award dated 23rd March, 2010. By this order I propose to decide the application for condonation of delay, being I.A. No. 10836/2011. The petitioner has specifically made the statement in the application that the petitioner never received any notice of passing of the Award from the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner came to know about the same by way of notice of execution of 29th May, 2011 and thereafter the objections were filed. As far as limitation for filing the application for setting aside the Award is concerned, according to the petitioner, time has still not lapsed as signed copy of the Award has not been received by the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent has opposed the prayer of the application filed by the petitioner. Along with the reply, the respondent filed an affidavit of Mrs. Arathi Shivkumar who deposed that subsequent to the making of the Award, the learned Arbitrator handed over the original signed Award to her for sending the same to the petitioner. In terms of the said directions of the learned Arbitrator on 29th March, 2010, she sent/posted original signed Award to the petitioner and its copy to her Advocate Sh. Sanjay Agnihotri through courier along with letter dated 29th March, 2010. The copies of the letter, courier receipts as well as print out from the website of the courier company giving the status of the service report have been attached along with the affidavit which show that the said letters were delivered to the petitioner and her Advocate.

(3.) Mr. Sanjeev Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, stated that the petitioner has made an incorrect statement before the Court that the petitioner has not received the signed copy of the Award. However, it is not disputed by him that the sole Arbitrator did not send the signed copy of the Award or the copy of the award to the petitioner directly either by hand or by post. He referred to letter dated 16th February, 2009 issued by the Arbitrator in which it is informed by him to the parties that he did not have his own secretarial staff to communicate the proceedings to the parties and he left the administrative and clerical work relating to the communication of the proceedings to the parties but limited to dispatch of letters, communication to parties or any other documents under his express directions against the charges to be reimbursed by him. Lastly, it was argued by Mr. Anand that since petitioner and her counsel have denied having received the signed copy of the Award under the of letter dated 29th March, 2010, it was their duty to disclose the Court about the receiving of letter and its contents received by them.