I T C LTD Vs. PRADEEP ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vikramajit Sen, J.This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for amendment of the Objections to the Award dated 24.4.1998. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been invoked. In brief, the case of the petitioner/applicant is that it had been led to understand that Shri C.L. Anand had died intestate and that his son, Shri Pradeep Anand, should, therefore, be impleaded in place of his deceased father. In the interim Award dated 20.3.1997 the learned Arbitrator had recorded that, "The applicant Shri Pradeep Anand claims to be the son and legal heir of Shri C.L. Anand (deceased). He and members of the family of the late Shri C.L. Anand would like to continue and to proceed with this arbitration proceedings; hence this application".

(2.) In the present application it has been stated that, "Respondent No. 1 dishonestly suppressed the fact that Shri C.L. Anand had died leaving a Will, in which his wife Mrs. Shiela Anand was named as the sole heir. This fact has come to light only very recently in the Affidavit by way of evidence in rebuttal of respondent No. 1 dated 22.3.1999 filed by respondent No. 1 before the Arbitrator. This crucial fact was not known to the petitioner at any time prior thereto and was not disclosed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner at the relevant time during the period 1996 to 1997 when the said application for substitution was considered". It is worthy to note that despite the rigours of limitation being ominously present, the applicant has not bothered to state, with any exactitude, the date of gaining knowledge of the facts.

(3.) The application which falls for consideration was filed on 29.5.1999. The non-applicants have opposed the application on the grounds that it is barred by limitation.