STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BABULAL PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act from the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Betul, setting aside an award on the ground that it was made after "the prescribed time. The objection that the award was made beyond the time prescribed by law was not raised by any party. After disposing of the objections, which were raised before him under Section 30 of the arbitration Act, he raised the question of time limit suo motu.

(2.) THE facts as stated by the arbitrator in his award are that on January 12, 1960, babula' Pathak had purchased coupe No. 1, Bha;nsaghat, in public auction for Rs. 20. 000, the contract period being upto March 31, 1961. The forest staff detected some illicit felling in the coupe and the Divisional Forest Officer, South Betul division, Betul, imposed penalty, on the contractor. The contractor denied the allegations made against him. Thus a dispute arose. In his award, the arbitrator held that, Babulal Pathak was guilty of committing breach of Clause 7 of the deed of contract. The contractor filed objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, whereupon the following issues were framed by the Court:--

(3.) THE appellant's contention is that the respondent had not included that objection in his application under Section' 30 of the Act and that no opportunity was given to the appellants to make an application under Section 28 of the Act. It is further contended that this was a fit case where the Court should have, in exercise of its discretion, extended the time, particularly when the parties had acquiesced and continued to appear before the arbitrator all along without, any demur and took a chance for an award in their favour.