BRIJ LAL & SONS Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Award of 6th March, 2003, appellant's claim of Rs. 3,78,000/- on account of final bill has been negated by observing that claimant has failed to establish the claim beyond final bill of Rs. 1,49,226/-, and out of the said amount, substantial amount of Rs. 1,26,708/- has been already paid to appellant under the running account bill No.3, which was duly accepted by appellant without protest and out of the balance amount of Rs. 22,518/- payable, Rs. 16,723/- towards the security and Rs. 451/- towards the statutory income tax have been deducted. In respect of claim No.1 of '3.78 lac on account of Final Bill, the Arbitrator grants a sum of Rs. 5,344/- only to appellant-claimant while disallowing the claim of Rs. 1,150/- on account of labour report. The next claim for refund of the security deposit of Rs. 7,500/- has been rejected on the ground that the security deposit stands forfeited. The third claim of Rs. 1 lac on account of damages has been also rejected by the Arbitrator while observing that this claim does not stand substantiated. The fourth and the last claim for interest @ 15% per annum on the delayed payment has been considered by the Arbitrator and the interest @ 10% per annum has been given on the Awarded amount of Rs. 5,344/- only from 5th January, 1994 till the date of discharge or the decree, whichever is earlier.

(2.) On receipt of the Award, appellant had filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the trial court while seeking direction to Arbitrator to file the original Award of 6th March, 2003 and the original Award was filed by the respondent on 10th November, 2003 to which objections were filed by the appellant on 16th February, 2004. It is a matter of record that appellant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amending the objections to bring them under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order of 26th February, 2005. Trial court vide impugned order has dismissed appellant's objections by holding that the Award was passed on 6th March, 2003 and the objections have been filed after delay of 11 months i.e. on 16th February, 2004 and thus, the objections have been dismissed as time barred. While giving sequence of events, trial court in paragraph No.40 of the impugned order has concluded that appellant was aware about the filing of the Award of 10th November, 2003. However, trial court has also considered the appellant's objections on merits in paragraph No.64 of the impugned order after taking note of the various decisions. The finding returned in the impugned order is that the objections raised by the appellant are not covered under the old Act and it was held that the Arbitrator has passed a reasoned Award.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned order and the Award of 6th March, 2003 by learned Amicus Curiae representing appellant is on the ground that the Limitation Act is not applicable because no application was filed for making the Award 'Rule of the Court'. It is pointed out that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the old Act of 1940 i.e. Arbitration Act, 1940, and in the instant case, the delay of about 11 months ought to have been condoned.