S M CHOPRA Vs. G P AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) At request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein-after referred to as the said Act) objecting to an award. Along with the said application, another application was filed under 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the objection. The petitioner in whose favour the award has been made objected to the maintainability of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The trial court vide the order dated 13.10.2005 has been pleased to entertain objections of the respondent on merit holding that technicalities should not come in the way of substantive justice even though the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may not be maintainable. On perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view, that the trial court appears to have misdirected itself in analyzing the scope of the dispute and the impugned order is devoid of any reasons. There is no doubt and it is not even pleaded by learned counsel for the respondent herein that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the present case. The plea of the learned counsel is that a copy of the award was never served upon the respondent and thus the application filed by the respondent ought to have been entertained under Section 34 of the said Act. The relevant provision in this respect would be Section 34(3) of the said Act, which reads as under: