DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application for condonation of delay in refiling has not been filed. It is, however, pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming this delay in refiling is condoned, the objections cannot be entertajned for the reasons set out in the Order dated 22.10.2005.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge, rightly so, that the objections as framed do not incorporate specifically the plea regarding the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC. The grounds which have been taken are all on the issue of re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The only other ground is that the Award is contrary to the terms of the Agreement. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this plea should be considered as the plea in respect of interpretation of escalation clause 10CC. In my considered view, this is not possible. If there was a plea to be taken by the petitioner impugning the Award dated 10.03.2005 on the issue of the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC, the plea ought to have been taken specifically.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to incorporate this plea through additional objections. This is also not possible for the reason that such an objection today would be barred by time. In this behalf, reference may be made to sub- section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') which reads as under :-