9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application seeking condonation of delay in filing objections to an arbitral award is maintainable. 2. Whether the service of the arbitral award was properly effected. 3. Whether the court possesses the power to condone delay beyond the statutory period. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Application for Condonation of Delay: The appeal challenges the order dismissing the appellant's objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A and C Act) due to being filed beyond the statutory period. The application for condoning the delay was dismissed, with the court holding it lacked the power to condone the delay, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. The court emphasized that the phrase "but not thereafter" in Section 34(3) of the A and C Act expressly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thereby barring the court from entertaining applications to set aside an award beyond the extended period. 2. Proper Service of the Arbitral Award: The appellant contended that a copy of the award was never delivered to it, as required by Section 31(5) of the A and C Act, which states, "After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party." The appellant claimed to have learned about the award only upon receiving notice in the execution proceedings. The court noted that the award was filed in execution proceedings by the decree holder and not received directly from the arbitral tribunal. The registry reported that the son of the deceased arbitrator stated that the arbitration files had been handed over to the concerned parties/advocates. The court highlighted that no substantial evidence showed the award was dispatched by the arbitrator to the appellant. 3. Power to Condon Delay Beyond Statutory Period: The court reiterated that it does not possess the power to condone delay beyond thirty days after the expiry of three months from the date of delivery of a copy of the award. The court referred to the judgment in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, which emphasized that the delivery of an arbitral award is a matter of substance and must be received by the party to set in motion the periods of limitation. The court also discussed the judgment in State of Goa v. Western Builders, which stated that while Section 43 of the A and C Act envisages the application of the Limitation Act, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded for applications under Section 34 of the A and C Act. The court concluded that there is no scope for condoning delay beyond the statutory period. Conclusion: The court concluded that the provisions of the A and C Act pertaining to the service of the award were not complied with, and therefore, the time for filing objections had not commenced. Consequently, the question of delay did not arise, and the application of Popular Construction was not warranted. The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed that the objections under Section 34 be decided on their merits. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
|
