NUGENT ESTATES LTD. Vs. MS SHOES EAST LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 08.01.2015 whereby the application of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to the Award dated 23.05.2012 were dismissed. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the delay in filing the objections by the appellant was "voluminous" and a sufficient explanation had not been given for the delay. The impugned order notices the averments made by the appellant in the application seeking condonation of delay to the effect that the appellant was not served either in the suit for appointment of the Arbitrator or in the arbitration proceedings and became aware of the arbitration proceedings when it received a notice dated 02.06.2012 from the Arbitrator and became aware that an Award had been passed on 23.05.2012.

(2.) It is contended that the appellant became aware of the Award dated 23.05.2012 having been filed in the Court when it received notice from the Registry on 15.01.2013. On an inspection of the record conducted on 31.01.2013 and 07.02.2013, it was discovered that the arbitration record had not been filed and consequently an application was filed on 16.02.2013 (IA No. 3088/2002) for a direction to the plaintiff to provide the entire record of the arbitration proceedings and for granting an extension of time of 30 days for filing of the objections to the Award. The said application was disposed of on 10.07.2013 as the arbitral record stood filed and 3 weeks' time was given to the appellant to file objections to the Award. The appellant, on inspection, discovered that the arbitral record comprised of approximately 2000 pages. Thereafter an application was filed for grant of further 4 weeks to inspect the arbitral record and file objections. The said application was allowed on 07.08.2013. The objection, thereafter, was filed on 21.08.2013 with a delay of 186 days. The contention of the appellant was that the delay between the periods 16.02.2013 to 10.07.2013 was because of non-availability of the record and the delay between 11.07.2013 to 21.08.2013 was because of the vastness of the record. On these grounds, the delay in filing the objections was sought to be explained.

(3.) The respondents refuted the contentions of the appellant contending that the appellant was aware of the proceedings and the Award and even a copy of the Award was received. It is contended that the delay was intentional, deliberate and the explanation lacked bonafides.