EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I propose to dispose of LA. Nos. 11211/2006 and 13058/2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In as much as the applications are based on identical facts, these applications are taken up together for consideration.

(2.) Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I find that there is no dispute to the material dates. I find that the arbitral award dated 16th September, 2005 was received by the petitioner from the arbitrator. Inasmuch as no specific date of receipt is mentioned, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the same may be presumed to have been received on the same date.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Delhi. These objections were registered as Suit No. 161/2005 and were listed before the court of Shri Y. Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The respondent filed its reply on the 26th December, 2005 wherein a specific objection was taken that the court did not possess the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the objections and that the same were liable to be rejected. The respondent had also pointed out the fact that the reference to the arbitration was made pursuant to orders passed by this court on the 18th February, 2003 in A.A. No. 10/2003. Copy of the order passed by this court was also placed on record along with the reply.