UNION OF INDIA Vs. VED PRAKASH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012 passed by District Judge Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2003, Union of India v. M/s. Ved Prakash Arora whereby the objection U/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected on the ground of limitation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that a dispute raised by the respondent was referred to the arbitrator pursuant to agreement No. C.A.-C.W.E./R.K.E./74 of 1990-91 for which the application was made on 2-8-1996 to refer the dispute to the arbitrator and Col. Sri A.K. Jain, Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly was appointed arbitrator on 10-9-1998. This fact is not in dispute that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enforced on 22.8.1996. The Apex Court in the judgment of M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., 2001 AIR(SC) 2293, has held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act enforced on 22-8-1996 is in continuation of ordinance issued earlier and deemed to have been effective from 25-1-1996 i.e. when first ordinance came into force. Therefore, the proceedings ought to have been initiated under the new Act. The award was made by the arbitrator on 31-5-1999. The appellant instead of filing objection U/S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, filed objections before the Civil Judge (S.D.). An application 6-C was filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Roorkee to this effect that the learned Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the objections under the new Act and the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties allowed the said application vide order dated 22-10-2001 and ordered to return the objections to the appellants/objectors to present the same before the competent court. Thereafter the objections were taken back by the appellants on 16-7-2003 and were filed before the District Judge on 18-7-2003. The learned District Judge after hearing the appellant as well as the respondent rejected the objections as time barred and it has been held that Section-5 and Section-14 of Limitation Act are not applicable to the provision of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.