SANTOSH KUMAR AGNIHOTRI Vs. SUNDARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The court below by the order dated 10th February, 2004, has rejected the objections filed by the present appellant against the award of the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the same is barred by limitation. The controversy involved in the present appeal is short one. The objector/appellant has claimed the condonation of delay in filing objections both under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The factual scenario of the case is that the Arbitral Tribunal gave an award on 11th April, 1996. The present appellant filed objections to the said award on 13th May, 1996 but before the Civil Judge and not before the District Judge. An objection was raised by the respondent regarding correct Forum. The Civil Judge by the order dated 11th October, 2001. ordered for the return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate court. It appears that objections were not taken back from the Court of Civil Judge immediately after the aforesaid order, dated 11.10.2001. He waited about eleven months. Thereafter, on 7.9.2002, he got it back and presented it on that very day before the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. An application for condonation of delay was filed for preferring the objections on the allegations that the objections were filed before the Civil Judge under the some bona fide mistake and the time spent therein is liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court below by the impugned order has rejected the said application on the ground that the order of returning the petition (objections) was passed on 11.10.2001 and no effort was made for taking back the objections immediately thereafter. Challenging the aforesaid order the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The dispute in the present case is that whether the provisions of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the objections preferred by the appellant against the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 (1) of the Act provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Act the Court can condone the delay provided the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the period of three months by a further period of 30 days, but not thereafter. The gist of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that a Court can condone a delay in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act at the most for a period of 30 days but not exceeding thereof.