LAWS(DLH)-2004-8-63

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ROSE ADVERTISING

Decided On August 24, 2004
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
V/S
ROSE ADVERTISING Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OMP No.362/2003 is an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) against an Award dated 6.10.1998. IA.No.9267/2003 is an application under Section 34(3) of the Act for condoning the delay in the filing of the objections under Section 34 of the Act and IA No.9268/2003 is an application under Section 35 of the Act for staying the execution proceedings filed by the respondent vide Execution Petition No.58/1999 till the disposal of the objections under Section 34 of the Act.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. I have gone through the records.

(3.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid OMP and the IAs., briefly stated, are that in view of the arbitration agreement and disputes between the parties an Arbitrator was appointed, who made and published his Award dated 6.10.1998. The respondent No.1 filed an Execution Application No.58/1999 but the petitioner objected to the execution on various grounds inter alia that the Award could not be executed under the Act of 1996 inasmuch as the arbitral proceedings had commenced prior to the coming into force of the said Act. These objections of the petitioner were upheld by a learned Hon'ble Judge of this Court but in an appeal filed by the respondent No.1, the Division Bench held that the execution application was maintainable. The order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The petitioner filed SLP No.105/2002 in the Supreme Court of India, which was decided vide orders dated 17.4.2003. It was held by the Supreme Court that the parties had agreed to be governed by the law as in force at the relevant time and in view of Section 85(2) the Act of 1996 only was applicable and even the Arbitrator had proceeded on that understanding and given his Award. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of time to file objections against the Award was considered and it was held that the question as to whether the time for making an application for setting aside the Award could be extended or not will have to be decided as and when an application for that purpose is made. The SLP filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.4.2003. On 29.8.2003, the petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Act along with the aforesaid two IAs praying that the delay in the filing of the objections under Section 34 of the Act be condoned. It was also prayed that the execution proceedings be stayed.