UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHAVIR INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 16680/2008 there is a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the reasoning stated in the application which is supported with affidavit of Shri dinesh Kumar Singh, Dy. Director of Supply of appellant, delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. FAO (OS) No. 733/2006 present is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 (in short the Arbitration Act) against the order dated 14th September, 2006 by which the application under Section 34 of the arbitration Act of the appellant has been dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground of limitation.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant, Union of India through Director General of Supplies and disposal entered into a contract with respondent M/s Mahavir Industries for supply of 55 km of 150 sq. mm ASCR conductor. Certain disputes arose between the parties which were referred for arbitration to the sole Arbitrator Shri B. L. Nishad. The Arbitrator made the award on 28. 2. 2001, in favour of respondent regarding claims No. 1 and 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, appellant filed objections by way of making an application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act for setting aside the arbitral award before District Judge, Delhi. This application was filed on 25. 4. 2001. The application was assigned to an additional District Judge, who vide order dated 16. 1. 2002, held that the district court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the application and ordered the same to be returned to the appellant under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presenting in a court of competent jurisdiction. The said application was taken back by the appellant on 4. 2. 2002 and was filed in this Court on 5. 3. 2002. Notice of this application was issued by learned Single Judge to respondents who in response moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 cpc for dismissal of the objections on the ground of limitation. Learned Single judge after hearing the parties allowed the application of respondent and rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that same was not presented to the court within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act. Aggrieved with the said order present appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant contended that appellant had pursued his remedy before learned ADJ by moving an application under Section 34 of arbitration Act. It is contended that if benefit under Section 14 of the limitation Act i. e. time spent by appellant in prosecuting his remedy in another court is excluded in computing the period of limitation under Section 34 of the act, there was delay of only seven days in filing objections in the court. It is contended that learned Single Judge could have condoned the same under proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act. It is contended that learned single Judge has taken a hypertechnical view in not condoning the delay of seven days.