UNION OF INDIA Vs. MITTAL STEELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether objections to an arbitration award admittedly filed in the court of an Additional District Judge not only after the expiry of three months from the date on which the arbitral award was received by the applicant but also after a lapse of further 30 days from the expiry of said three months were rightly dismissed as barred by time or could the time period be extended depending upon the cause shown in the application for condonation of delay"

(2.) THE limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award is provided in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short called "the Act of 1996"). This is how it runs :-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1996 provides an outer limit of three months in filing objections to an arbitral award from the date it is received by the party challenging the same and also provides for a grace period of thirty days beyond the period of three months if sufficient cause is shown for not making the application within the period of three months. Nonetheless, he contends that the limit set out in the said section cannot put fetters on the power of the Court to entertain the objections even if they are filed after the expiry of the period as laid down therein. In support of his submission, he has referred to Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein it is provided that the defendant shall file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons and if a defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but it shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. It is contended that language of Order 8 Rule 1 is couched in a more negative form than the expression used in Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 and that the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480. has held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 do not take away the power of the Court to take a written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided therein. On the basis of parity with this judgment, it is argued that there is no absolute bar on the courts to entertain objections to an arbitral award even beyond the period of limitation provided therein.