UNION OF INDIA Vs. SWANAND ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had raised a preliminary objection that the very application filed by the appellants herein under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the learned Addl. Civil Jduge, S. D. , Vascodagama itself was clearly time barred and as such the learned Addl. Civil Judge S. D. , Vascodagama could not have entertained the aforesaid application at all and pass the order therein.

(2.) In that behalf Mr. Thali, the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out from the record that the award was duly made and signed by the Sole Arbitrator on 4 December, 1997. On the very same day notice under Section 14 (1) of the said Act was issued to the appellants as well as the respondent. Mr. Thali also pointed out that the award was duly filed before the learned Addl. Civil Judge S. D. , Vascodagama on 26 December, 1997 by the respondent herein and the same was duly registered on the same day. It appears that the Court issued a notice on 3 January, 1998 to all the parties with regard to the aforesaid filing of the award. The present appellants were duly served with the aforesaid notice of filing of award in Court on 13. 1. 1998. Mr. Thali pointed out in the light of the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the said Act the appellants ought to have filed their application under Section 30 r/w Section 33 of the said Act on or before 12 February, 1998. However, it appears that the application raising objections with regard to the award under Section 30 r/w Section 33 of the said Act were actually filed only on 20 February, 1998, as such, the same was clearly barred by limitation. Mr. Thali also emphasized that no application for condonation of delay was made by the appellants herein before the Addl. Civil Judge S. D. , Vascodagama and, as such, he contended that the said application was clearly barred by limitation, and the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division had no jurisdiction to hear the same.

(3.) Mr. Thali pointed out that as per Section 40 (2) of the said Act read with Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act any application to set aside an award has to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of filing of the award. Mr. Thali pointed out that the appellants are duly served with the award of the Court on 13. 1. 1998, whereas the last date for filing was 12 February, 1998. However, the appellants had filed objections only on 20 February, 1998 and had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay before the said Addl. Civil Judge S. D. , Vasco dagama. Mr. Thali also brought to my notice that before the said Court the respondent herein had specifically raised a preliminary objection that the application was barred by limitation and therefore the same cannot be entertained by the Court. Mr. Thali contended that inspite of the same, the Court has not decided the issue of limitation at all.