S.A.L. ROCHE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. Admit. With consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the appeal is heard forthwith.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri A.F. Diniz, for the appellant, relying upon number of authorities to which reference will be made at a later stage, has urged before me that the trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the objections filed by the appellant were barred by limitation. He also placed before me facts of the case in support of his submissions.

(3.) I shall first deal with the contention of learned Advocate Shri Bharne that Section 5 is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. As already stated he has placed reliance on para 29 of Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ajit Mehta (supra) wherein it has been observed that admittedly the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to applications under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It appears that this finding was rendered on the basis of concession made by learned Advocates for the parties, but for this concession there is no discussion in this ruling on the question as to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, on the basis of the said concession it was further pointed out that hence if it is held that the present ground is not covered by the provisions of Section 30(c) it cannot be raised in this appeal since it would be barred by limitation. From this it is clear that the objection relating to limitation was raised for the first time in the appeal before the Division Bench and it is in this context that the observations of the Division Bench in para 29 have to be viewed. In my view the Division Bench ruling does not lay down any law as such on the question of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act vis -a -vis Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.