1977 (12) TMI 142 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing objections to an arbitration award.
2. Negligence and conduct of the appellant's advocate.
3. Application of Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding deficient court fees.
4. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act concerning delay in representation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Objections to an Arbitration Award:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing objections against the arbitration award dated 23rd July 1976. The objections were initially filed within the limitation period but were returned due to defects such as lacking necessary stamps and the date of verification. The appellant argued that the delay in refiling was due to the obstructive and unethical behavior of their advocate, Shri B. Singh, who demanded an unjustifiable fee and withheld the necessary documents.

The High Court dismissed the petition for condonation of delay, stating that the appellant did not act with due diligence and had sufficient time to refile the objections before 21st January 1977. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning unsound and unconvincing. The Court noted that the appellant was diligent in their efforts and the delay was beyond their control due to the advocate's conduct.

2. Negligence and Conduct of the Appellant's Advocate:
The appellant's advocate, Shri B. Singh, was accused of exerting illegal and unethical pressure by demanding Rs. 15,000 unjustifiably. Despite being paid Rs. 3,000 for drafting the objections, he failed to credit this amount in his bill and did not affix the necessary stamps on the objections. When the objections were returned for rectifying defects, he demanded the additional fee and threatened to withhold further action.

The Supreme Court criticized Shri B. Singh's conduct, stating that he acted without care or attention to his client's interest and behaved recklessly. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with his behavior but refrained from issuing a notice or calling for an explanation, directing instead that a copy of the judgment be sent to the All India Bar Council for appropriate action.

3. Application of Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has ample jurisdiction to allow the payment of deficient court fees at any stage. The defect of not affixing the date of verification was considered immaterial. The Court concluded that the objections were filed within the prescribed period, and the delay, if any, was in rectifying the defects and refiling, which was not due to any fault of the appellant.

4. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The Court noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the extension of the prescribed period if the petitioner shows sufficient cause for the delay. However, since the objections were initially filed within the limitation period, Section 5 was not applicable. The delay was in representation after rectifying defects, which is not subject to the rigorous tests applied under Section 5.

The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, including Mahant Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., and State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality & Ors., to support its decision. It emphasized that when the delay is not due to the litigant's fault but due to wrong advice from their legal adviser, sufficient cause under Section 5 can be pleaded.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for condonation of delay. The appellant had sufficient cause for the delay, which was due to circumstances beyond their control. The Court directed the respondents to pay the costs of the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the objections were deemed to have been filed within time.