1998 (8) TMI 642 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of objections to arbitration award for non-prosecution.
2. Application for restoration and condonation of delay.
3. Contention regarding dismissal of objections on merits.
4. Delay in filing application for restoration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's objections to the arbitration award were dismissed by the learned Single Judge for non-prosecution as nobody appeared to prosecute them. The Single Judge noted that the objections were on the merits of the award, which could not be considered under the Indian Arbitration Act, leading to their dismissal as meritless.

2. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for restoration along with a plea for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The delay was attributed to the Department's lack of prompt action in pursuing the matter. The appellant cited circumstances such as the previous counsel resigning, the subsequent appointment of a new counsel, and delays in obtaining necessary documents as reasons for the delay.

3. The respondent contended that the objections were also dismissed on merits, implying that the application for restoration was not maintainable. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the dismissal of the condonation of delay application was based on the Department's non-serious attitude rather than the objections being dismissed on merits.

4. Considering the circumstances presented by the appellant and the general leniency courts show in such matters, the Court decided to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. The Court found that the delay was unintentional and did not indicate negligence or total inaction on the appellant's part. Whether the limitation period started from the date of learning about the dismissal or the actual order date was not a crucial factor in this decision.

5. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the condonation of delay application and directing the restoration application to be decided on its merits. The parties were instructed to appear before the Single Judge for further proceedings, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.