NARULA AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) THIS is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 31-10-1975.

(3.) . Apart from it a notice of any proceedings to the Central Government would be valid only if it was either sent to the Secretary to the Government or to any other officer who may be authorised to act for the Government in respect of judicial proceedings or to the pleader as defined in Rule 8(B) of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for suits by or against the Government or public officers in their official capacity. Rule 2 of this order provides that persons being ex-officio or otherwise authorised to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be the recognised agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government. Rule 3 provides that in suits by or against the Government instead of inserting in the plaint the name and description and place of residence of the plaintiff or defendant, it shall be sufficient to insert the appropriate name as provided in section 79 of the Code. Section 79 provides that in suit by or against the Government the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government shall be the Union of India. Rule 4 of the Order XXVII provides that the Government pleader in any Court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Government issued by such Court. Rule 8(B)(a) of th6 said order defines the terms 'Government pleader' in relation to any suit by or against the Central Government as the pleader as Government may appoint whether generally or specially for the purposes of the said order. The practice and the procedure adopted by this Court is that the notices are sent to the Central Government Standing Counsel as provided in the aforesaid rules. In the absence of any provision of law or any rules of business or a,ny statutory rule it is not possible to hold that the Executive Engineer was empowered to accept notice on behalf of the Union of India and that the receipt of the notice of the filing of the award received in his office constituted sufficient notice to the Union of India so as to commence the period of limitation for filing objections to the award. The notice of the filing of the award in the Court is deemed to have been served on 27-2-1976 when the Central Government Standing Counsel put in appearance on behalf of the Union of India. The objections contained in IA 584 of 1976 are. therefore, entertained as within time. There will be no order as to costs.