NEPA LIMITED Vs. RANA TIMBER TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual matrix and the points of law involved being similar, both the civil revisions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in Civil Revision No. 659/95 arc adumbrated herein.

(2.) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of papers. The non-applicant No. 1 had entered into an agreement with it for supply of eucalyptus timber waste for manufacture of papers. During the continuance of the agreement disputes arose between the parties. As there was an arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes the non-applicant No. 2 was appointed as the sole arbitrator. Non-applicant No. 2 entered into reference for adjudicating the claim put forth by the non-applicant No. 1 and eventually passed an award on 3-9-1990. It is worth noting here by the award the learned arbitrator rejected the claim of the non-applicant No. 1. The award was passed on 3-9-1990. The non-applicant No. 1 received intimation about passing of the award with a copy of the award on 10-9-1991. Thereafter, the non- applicant No. 1 filed an application before the competent Court for issuance of direction to the sole arbitrator to file the award and produce arbitration proceedings including documents. The said application was filed under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was numbered as C. S. No. 40/92. It is worth noting here in Paragraph 13 the non-applicant mentioned as follows :-

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order it is submitted by Mr. Dharmadhikari that filing of the application under Section 14 (2) of the Act should have not been accepted as objection to the award as the same was filed before filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act by the petitioner. It is also urged by him that as no objection was filed within 30 days from the date of filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act, no further objection would be entertained. Resisting the aforesaid submissions, it is put forth by Mr. Hundikar that the non-applicant came to know about the existence of the award when the arbitrator served a copy of the same on him and thereafter, he filed an application before the Court below in incorporating his objections therein and hence, there is no hurdle or obstacle to treat the objection to be one under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act.