STATE OF KERALA Vs. P K RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A. No.412 of 1996 was filed under Section 39 (vi) of the Arbitration Act against the judgment and decree in O.P. (Arb.) No 109 of 1992 of the Sub Court, Kollam. M.F.A. No.1572 of 2001 was filed under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act against the order in I.A. No 513 of 1993 in O.P. (Arb.) No 109 of 1992 of the same court.

(2.) M.F.A. No.412 of 1996 was filed with a petition for condonation of delay of 2,671 days. Appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Sub Court dated 30.10.1993 in O.P. (Arb.) No.109 of 1992 under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act. State and the Department if wanted to challenge the judgment and decree in arbitration proceedings ought to have filed the appeal not under Section 39(vi) of the Act but on the ground available under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. While challenging the judgment and decree of the court below in M.F.A No.412 of 1996 State paid court fee of Rs.16,618/- under Schedule II Article 4 Sub Clause (1)(c) amended as per Section 52 of the Court Fees Act which was not necessary if the State wanted to challenge the judgment and decree only. One third of the court fee viz. Rs.5,539/- was initially paid. Since one-third of the court fee was paid in M.F.A No.412 of 1996 we have heard on merits both the cases after examining the grounds for condonation of delay.

(3.) There was considerable delay in filing M.F.A. No.1572 of 2001. However, M.F.A. No.412 of 1996 which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.P. No.109 of 1992 with a petition for condonation of delay after paying the court fee on a mistaken impression that State was actually challenging the order refusing to set aside the award. We have indicated in our judgment in M.F.A No.482 of 1998 and connected matters about the callous manner in which arbitration cases are being filed and conducted causing drain to the State exchequer. This is also yet another example which would show the callousness in conducting the arbitration cases by the State thereby public in large suffered. However, since considerable stake is involved we thought we would examine the petition for condonation of delay on merits.