PRAFULLA CHANDRA RATH Vs. JAGANNATH WEAVERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTRACTOR in whose favour an award has been passed by the Arbitrator, has assailed the order of the trial Court in entertaining an application objecting to the award Under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') beyond 30 days as provided under Art. 119 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

(2.) THE award was passed on 6 -4 -1992. It was sent to Court Under Section 14 of the Act on 15 -4 -1992. Arbitrator gave notice to the parties on 6 -4 -1992 intimating passing of the award and filing in Court in token of which the parties signed the order -sheet of the arbitrator. Award was submitted to Court three days after of the date fixed. On receipt of the award. Court issued notice to the opposite party in both ways for filing objection, if any fixing date of appearance and to show cause. On receipt of notice, opposite party filed objection on 15 -7 -1992 as stipulated in the notice. Petitioner in the Civil Revision raised objection stating that the application Under Section 33 of the Act objecting to the award by the opposite party is barred by limitation having been filed beyond 30 days which is the prescribed period fixed under the Limitation Act, 1963 in Art. 119 of the schedule. When application was filed on 15 -7 -1992 it was defective. Defect was removed and an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 16 -7 -1992 by the opposite party. In view of the objection of opposite party, the maintainability of the application Under Section 33 of the Act was considered by trial Court and it was held that such application is entertainable. Aggrieved by said order present Civil Revision has been -filed.

(3.) MR . S. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming that the application of the petitioner dated 15 -7 -1992 is without defect, the same is barred by limitation since an objection is to be filed from the date of receipt of notice that the award has been filed as required Under Section 14 of the Act. It is submitted that since the award was passed on 6 -4 -1992 and on the same day the parties have know - ledge of passing of the award and filing of the same within the date as fixed by Arbitrator as required under Art. 119 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Das further submitted that time having been prescribed by the legislature, objection could not have been entertained beyond 30 days. He has relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1965 Ori. 17 (Ganesh Chandra Misra v. Artatrana Mishra and Ors.) and also another decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 1233 (Madan Lal (dead) by his legal representatives v. Sunder Lal and Anr.) where it is stated that the legislature purpose fully having fixed a time, the same is to be adhered to. Mr. Das also relied on a decision reported in 31 (1965) CLT 1011 (Golak Chandra Biswal v. State of Orissa) where an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed beyond the period of limitation. When trial Court condoned the delay and allowed the application, this Court held that the delay could not have been condoned by the trial Court. Submission of Mr. Das requires careful consideration.