UNION OF INDIA Vs. BUILDERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Sec. 39 of the Arbitration Act against a decision of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge. Cuttack rejecting the appellant's objections to the award of the Arbitrator on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE respondent was entrusted by the Union of India with the work of "Strenethening and Extension of Main Runway and Apron, and Construction of Parallel Taxi-tracks at Charbatia. S.H.: Runway. Taxi Tracks and culverts". Dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement was referred to Shri B.M. Das, Superintending Engineer, N.H. Circle, Bhubaneswar. He made the award on 17-3-80 and sent it to the court with a forwarding letter. THE award was received by the court or 18-3-80. In his forwarding letter the Arbitrator had requested the court to fix his remuneration and indicated that the copies of the award would be made over to the parties only after they deposited his remuneration as fixed by the court. THE copies of the said forwarding letter were sent to the parties by the Arbitrator. On 27-5-80 the appellant received a notice from the court below to the effect that the arbitrator had filed the award on 18-3-80 and any objection to the said award might be field by 9-7-80 failing which action would be taken according to law. In pursuance of the said notice the appellant appeared in court on 9-7-80 and prayed for time to file objection against the award. THE court below did not pass any order on that application, but adjourned the case to the next day for consideration. On the next day that is, 10-7-80 the appellant filed an objection on general grounds since he had not received a copy of the award. On 18-8-80 a copy of the award was supplied to the counsel for the appellant. On 22-8-80 the appellant applied for leave to amend his objection petition dated 10-7-80. THE prayer for amendment was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the objection petition dated 10-7-80 was itself barred by limitation. On 2-9-80 the appellant made an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the objection. THE court below after hearing the parties held that the objection filed on 10-7-80 was barred by limitation and there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Accordingly the objections filed on 10-7-80 and 22-8-80 were dismissed as barred by limitation, and a decree in accordance with the award was passed. Aggrieved by his order the appellant has come up in appeal.

(3.) IN a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Consolidated Construction Company (Engineers and Contractors), (1981) 52 Cut LT 63: (AIR 1981 SC 166) it was held that unless there be clear exclusion, the arbitrator would have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for interest. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Ashok Construction Company v. Union of INdia, 1970 SCD 530.