9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing objections to the award before the Court. Analysis: The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing objections to an award dated December 7, 1990, by the sole arbitrator. The respondent was required to file objections within 30 days of receiving notice, but they filed them after a delay of 20 days. The court emphasized strict construction of the Limitation Act and the need for a valid explanation for any delay. The applicant's affidavit did not provide a satisfactory reason for the delay, and a subsequent affidavit lacked credibility as it was not based on personal knowledge. The court found the explanations for the delay insufficient and rejected the application for condonation of delay. The court highlighted that the reasons given for the delay in filing objections were not compelling. The applicant cited the busy schedule of an engineer as the cause of delay, but failed to explain the period after the engineer's reported completion of tasks till the actual filing date. The court reiterated the requirement for a detailed explanation for each day of delay. As the applicant failed to provide a valid reason for the delay, the objections were deemed time-barred and not accepted. The court concluded that the objections could not be taken on record and rejected the application accordingly. The judgment also mentioned the timeline of events, including the arbitrator filing the award, issuance of notices to parties, and the subsequent filing of objections beyond the statutory period. Despite being served with notice within the stipulated time, the petitioner did not file objections. The respondent's objections were filed late and subsequently rejected. The court upheld the award dated December 7, 1990, and made it a rule of the court, passing a decree in favor of the petitioner with interest. The court did not award any costs in the matter. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, rejected the objections as time-barred, and upheld the award as a rule of the court, passing a decree in favor of the petitioner.
|
