ASHVIN NEEMA Vs. MANGALAM CLOTHES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the Arbitral Award dated 11-10-1999. The petitioner challenged the said award by Arbitration Case No. 20 of 2000 on 18-1-2000 before the District Judge, Indore. The said order was passed after giving full opportunity to the parties including the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this Petition in February, 2009 on a foundation that the petitioner got the knowledge of dismissal order dated 24-4-2004, only on receiving the summons on 2-1-2009, as the Respondents have filed execution Petition pursuance to the said award. The petitioner therefore, applied for the Certified Copy on 3rd January, 2009 of the order dated 24-4-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Indore. He got the copy on 6th January, 2009 and therefore, this Petition.

(3.) The Apex Court has declared that the provisions in section 34(3) has to be construed strictly. The time limit so prescribed is absolute and unextendable. State of Goa vs. Western Builders, 2006 6 SCC 239. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides exclusion of period. Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and ors., 2008 7 SCC 169. In the case of Shakti Tubes Limited vs. State of Bihar and ors., 2009 1 SCC 786, it is held that the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under section 34 of the Act. The fact and circumstances has to be seen. It does not apply automatically.