PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. BIJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment dated 25th April, 2007 passed by learned Single Judge by which the objections preferred by the respondent Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') were dismissed being beyond the period of limitation as per Section 34 of the Act.

(2.) THE genesis of the objections on merits preferred before the learned Single Judge was that the agreement dated 3rd July, 2004 did not contain an arbitration clause. In support of the appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge, the appellant filed the agreement dated 3rd July, 2004. However, a perusal of the award shows that the award was passed on an agreement dated 6th October, 2004, copy of which was handed over to the Court by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Even before this Court the objections are only based upon the agreement dated 3rd July, 2004. Significantly, the relevant agreement dated 6th October, 2004 on the basis of which the learned Arbitrator gave the award was not filed. All the grounds taken in the memo of appeal related to the applicability of the agreement dated 3rd July, 2004. We have also seen averments in ground 'J' where it has been contended that the agreements dated 3rd July, 2004 and 6th October, 2004 produced by the respondent before the Arbitrator were forged and fabricated as the signatures of the appellant were missing on the relevant papers of the agreement. When the agreement dated 3rd July, 2004 was pointed out to the Counsel for the appellant, signatures of the appellants at page 29 were admitted. However, he said that this agreement was not relevant as this agreement did not contain the arbitration clause. In our view, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of making wrong averments and in particular keeping back the relevant agreement dated 6th October, 2004. The said agreement forms the basis of the arbitration award and appellant was duty bound to this Court to have filed the said agreement instead of only filing the agreement of 3rd July, 2004.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be dismissed for suppression of vital facts and making incorrect/false averments in the appeal. During the course of the hearing, agreement dated 6th October, 2004 and the objections filed against the award were handed over in the Court which are taken on the record of this Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. The pending application also stands disposed of.