RAJKUMARI Vs. KRISHNAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13 -4 -2006 passed in the proceedings under section 20 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 (registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 54/74), by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated, in brief, as follows:

(2.) WE have heard Shri Shyam Dewani, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. Having regard to the arguments of the rival sides, at the centre of controversy is the point regarding maintainability of the present appeal, and, therefore, the point that falls for our consideration is as follows:

(3.) SHRI R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, has submitted that the objections taken by some of the defendants were clearly filed beyond the period of limitation of 30 days from the date of service of the notice as prescribed under Article 119 -B of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and that they were not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay and, therefore, were rightly rejected by the trial Court as not maintainable in law. He further submits that the reasons given by the learned Civil Judge in the impugned judgment for rejecting the objections would make it clear that these objections were rightly rejected having been filed after expiry of period of limitation without there being any application filed for condoning the delay. He further submits that even though the suit was filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, it was kept pending for passing of the appropriate judgment and decree after receipt of the Award, as this Court in F.A. No. 108 of 1980 had directed the trial Court to appoint an Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the partnership -deed and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, as per its order dated 21 -9 -1989 while remanding the case for further trial. Besides, he further submits that there is no provision under the law that an Award filed during the pendency of such a suit cannot be taken up for consideration for pronouncement of the judgment as per the award under section 17 of the Arbitration Act. He further submits that the grounds taken up in the objections filed by some of the defendants were the grounds as contained in section 30 of the Arbitration Act, and nothing more was shown by the Objectors and, therefore, according to the settled law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal vs. Sunderlal reported in : AIR 1967 SC 1233, there was no question of the trial Court setting aside the Award suo motu.