STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GOVIND CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question for consideration in these appeals is whether sufficient cause has been shown within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. If sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, the Court may, in its discretion, condone delay and admit the appeals.

(2.) THIS batch of appeals is from a common order dated 4-8-1970 passed by Sri d. N. Misra, Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, under Section 17 of the Indian arbitration Act, 1940, by which six applications, being the subject-matter of six misc. cases, viz. , Nos. 50, 13, 15, 16. 28 and 29 of 1967, were heard together and disposed of. In all those cases, the respondent was the petitioner who had obtained six awards in six arbitration proceedings, commenced in pursuance of the arbitration clauses in six different contracts with the present appellant relating to disputes arising in connection with each such contract. The arbitrators submitted their awards on January 16, 1970, in all these cases. The awards were filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Bhubaneswar under section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Notice was given by the Court of filing of such awards and inviting objections on 29-1-1971. The appellants, in each case, filed objection on 3-3-1970 praying for setting aside the awards on various grounds, which were disputed by the respondent. After hearing the arguments in all the misc. cases, one common order was passed on 4-8-1970. The subordinate Judge, after refusing to set aside the awards, proceeded to pronounce judgments according to the awards. The order refusing to set aside the awards and passing of the judgment in accordance therewith were parts of the same composite order dated 4-8-1970. Subsequently, on 1-3-1971, the learned Advocate-General submitted that this batch of appeals should be treated as appeals from the order dated 4-8-1970, refusing to set aside the awards, and not as appeals against decrees which were drawn up following this order. He was allowed opportunity to give further particulars relating to the sufficiency of cause for excusing delay, on the footing that these appeals are from the order, and not from decrees, which he has done by a supplementary affidavit filed on 10-3-1971.

(3.) THE subject-matter of these appeals involves substantial amount of money. That apart, legal questions of far-reaching import are also involved. In our opinion, therefore, this is a case where after coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for excusing the delay for filing the appeals we should exercise our discretion to condone the delay and admit these appeal in the interest of justice. We would, however, direct that the appellant shall pay Rs. one-hundred, in each appeal, to the counsel for the respondent by way of costs, within six weeks from today.