HIMALYA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI L. N. Nargotra, the then Chief Engineer, was appointed as an arbitrator by this court on 23 -12 -985 in Arbitration application No. 176 of 1984 with directions to enter upon the reference and submit has award within the statutory period of four months. The Arbitrator passed the award on. 13 -10 -1987 and submitted the same in this Court on 9 -11 -1987. Notice on the filing of the award was given to the parties on 18 -11 -1987 in response to which Mr. H, L. Bhagotra appeared for the petitioner and Mr. B, S. Manhas for the respondents. After accepting the notice the learned counsel for the parties sought time to file objections within the statutory period. Mr. M. N. Gupta filed the objections but after the time prescribed by law and sought time to file an application for condonation of delay on 14 -3 -1988. Application for condonation of delay was also filed detailing therein the circumstances which allegedly prevented the respondents from filing the application for setting aside the award or object is within the time prescribed. The prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing of the objections has been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there was no provision authorising this court to condone the delay in filing an application for setting aside the award or objections to the award being made a rule of the court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) MR , H. L. Bhagotra ,appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the applications for setting aside an award on the grounds mentioned in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act A Division Bench of this court in Smt Gian Kour Vs. Atma Singh (1978 J&K LR 516) considered this point and came to the conclusion that the provisions of Limitation Act where not applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. It was held in that case: "The next question which falls for determination is whether or not respondent No. 1 could claim benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act If the answer to this question is in negative then surely the hurdle of Limitation in the way of respondent No. 1 would be insuperable, there being no other provisions of law under which extended period of limitation could be claimed. On its terms, Section 5; does not apply to an application for setting aside an award. But, these provisions may be made applicable to such applications as well by or under any other enactment as provided in the section it self. The only provision in regard to Limitation under the Act is contained in Section 37. It is now well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot apply to applications for setting aside an award on grounds mentioned in Section 30 of the Act even if the provisions of Section 37 are brought into aid. (See Chandanmull and Co. V. Mohambal M. Metha and Ors A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 561; Hastimal Balichan Bora and ors Vs. Hitalal Motichand Metha A. I. R. 1954 Bombay 243 and Genesh Chandra Misra V. Artatrana Misra and Ors A.I. R. 1965 Orissa: 17). Under the Indian Limitation Act of 1963, however, provisions of Section 5 have now been made applicable to such applications".