UNION OF INDIA Vs. ONKAR NATH BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Section 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the appellant-Union of India through Garrison Engineer Jammu (P) seeking setting aside of order dated 16.07.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jammu whereby application to condone the delay in filing application under Section 34 of the Act against the award dated 29.02.2016 was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts as narrated in the appeal are that: A contract was executed on 23.08.2010 between Chief Engineer Pathankot Zone and M/s onkar Nth Bhalla and sons for provision of OTM Accn for the information Bn., at Domana for lump sum of Rs.14,09,04,47,892/-. After completion of the work, on account of disputes between the parties, the matter was referred to Arbitration and Brig. Arun Mehta was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Accordingly, the arbitration proceedings culminated by passing the award dated 29.02.2016, thereafter, in exercise of power under Section 33(3) of the Act the final award was amended by the Sole Arbitrator and it was published on the same date i.e., 29.02.2016. Feeling aggrieved of award 29.02.2016, the Union of India challenged the same however, there was some delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, as such, the application for condoning the delay was also filed. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of pleadings, learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in terms of order dated 16.07.2019 rejected the condonation of delay application on the ground that the application cannot be entertained after expiry of maximum period of four months.

(3.) Being aggrieved of order dated 16.07.2019, the Union of India has preferred the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act on various grounds including the one that the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the condonation of delay application and has proceeded to hold that the maximum period of four months to file the petition under Section 34 of the Act expired on 09.07.2016 by presuming that the amended award was received by the appellant on 09.03.2019 which is totally perverse as there is no such evidence on record that the amended award was received by the appellant on 09.03.2016. It is contended in the appeal that the Court below even otherwise failed to appreciate by considering that the amended award has been received by the appellant on 19.03.2016, even that consideration also, the petition under Section 34 of the Act was very much within the maximum period of four months, therefore, the Court below instead of dismissing the application should have condone the delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act. Further contention of the appellant is that the Court below also failed to appreciate the amendment of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2018 whereby Section 34(3) of the Act of 1997 has been amended by substituting for the words 'three months' the words 'six months' thereby extending the period of limitation to file petition under Section 34 of the Act because the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act was pending before it for consideration, however the Court below has also failed to appreciate this fact. Thus, the order impugned rejecting the condonation of delay application is required to be set aside.