BIJAYA KUMAR SINGH SAMANTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE moot question that arises for consideration in this revision petition lies within a very narrow compass, that is, if the Court below was justified in making the award of the Arbitrators a rule of the Court before expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days for filing objections to the award.

(2.) THE petitioner, a contractor, was entrusted with the work of special report to Bagunia -lodachua Road at 21st K. Ms. to 22nd K. Ms. on behalf of the opposite party under agreement No. 97 -F2 of 1981 -82. After completion of the work he submitted a final bill claiming Rs. 5,994. 00 from the opposite party. The bill was disputed and the matter was referred to the Arbitration Tribunal in terns of the agreement. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 914/ - only,

(3.) SHRI P. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the provisions of Art. 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, it was incumbent upon the Subordinate judge to wait till expiry of the prescribed period, that is, thirty days from the date of service of notice of the filing of the award on the petitioner before pronouncing the judgment making the award a rule of the Court. Shri N. C. Panigrahi, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the opposite party tried to support the order of the Subordinate Judge contending that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it should be taken that the petitioner had given sufficient indication that he did not intend to file any objection to the award and as such, the Court made no error in disposing of the matter before expiry of the prescribed period,