NILA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 21-1-2004 in registering the O.P.No.26 of 2004 by the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity the Act), praying to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 5-8-2002, the respondent in the Award, viz., M/s. Neela Constructions Company, Gujarat State, preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision are that the petitioner herein submitted its tenders forthe civil works of Clinkerisation Plant Building and Fuel Plant of grinding unit, which was accepted by the respondent and an agreement was entered into on 1-6-1995. As per the terms, the petitioner was required to complete the structure pertaining to Clinkerisation plant within 12 months and three months grace period was also granted and to conclude the grinding plants with nine months. The respondent herein filed the O.P. averring that the petitioner herein could not complete the work within the stipulated time, as a result of which the respondent herein sustained loss and damages. The petitioner herein has invoked arbitration clause and filed claim statement claiming an amount of Rs.4,99,99,870/- and for interest. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award dated 5-8-2002 holding that the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.83,10,822/- and also awarded interest at 15% p.a. on Rs.53,94,327/- from the date of the award till payment. The counter claim preferred by the respondent herein was rejected.

(3.) Aggrieved of the said award, the respondent herein filed the above O.P., seeking to set aside the award. It is submitted that though the award was passed on 5-8-2002 it was served on 7-8-2002 and the O.P. filed against the said award was returned several times by the office of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy, with several objections and after complying the same, it was ultimately registered as O.P. No.26 of 2004 on 21 -1 -2004. Aggrieved of the said registration of the O.P., the present revision petition is filed, inter alia contending that in terms of the contract, the jurisdiction for all the proceedings in arbitration is agreed as at Hyderabad and hence, no other Court has jurisdiction to entertain of OP. and therefore, exclusion of jurisdiction, is not permissible. It is further contended that when the award was passed on 5-8-2002, the O.P. filed under Section 34 of the Act is beyond the limitation period. It is further contended thatthe plea thatthe award was received only on 7-8-2002 is not substantiated and is deliberately made to bring the same within the period of limitation, at any rate, after amendment to the Code of Civil of Procedure, delay in representation cannot be condoned beyond thirty days.