2022 (4) TMI 1626 - HC - Indian Laws

Time limitation - rejection of request for arbitration with respect to an Award solely on the ground that it has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation - HELD THAT - It is without doubt that one cannot find fault with Ext.P6, because the petitioner appears to have supported his application for condonation of delay merely saying that he was not aware of the rigor of limitation. Obviously, therefore, the Statutory Arbitrator was justified in having rejected it for the reason that sufficient cause for condonation of delay had not been established. However, it must be borne in mind that not all citizens are well-versed in law and that it is possible that some of them may not be aware that there are fixed periods of limitation for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction. This is precisely why the stipulation of the Limitation Act is made applicable in such matters. Since the petitioner says that he is not a legally trained person and that he is from a very disadvantaged background, he must obtain some lenitude, this Court will be justified in granting to him. The application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring Ext.P3 Arbitration Request is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning an order of the Statutory Arbitrator under the National Highways Act for rejecting arbitration request based on limitation period.
2. Contention of the petitioner regarding entitlement to seek condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
3. Justification of the Statutory Arbitrator in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
4. Consideration of the petitioner's background and lack of legal knowledge in granting relief.
5. Setting aside the order and directing the Statutory Arbitrator to reconsider the arbitration application.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Ext.P6 order of the Statutory Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, which dismissed his request for arbitration due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner argued that the provisions of the Limitation Act should apply, allowing him to seek condonation of delay. The respondents contended that the petitioner's reason for the delay was lack of awareness of the limitation period, which was insufficient to warrant condonation. The court acknowledged the petitioner's lack of legal knowledge and disadvantaged background, emphasizing the need for leniency in such cases.

The court recognized that not all individuals are well-versed in legal matters and may not be aware of limitation periods. Despite the petitioner's limited legal understanding, the court found merit in his request for condonation of delay, especially considering his plea for enhancement of compensation supported by valid documents. Consequently, the court set aside the Ext.P6 order, directing the Statutory Arbitrator to review the arbitration application on its merits, affording the petitioner and NHAI officials an opportunity to present their case and documents for a fair decision.

Furthermore, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the court if the arbitration application is not disposed of within eight months, allowing for the fixing of a time frame based on prevailing circumstances. This comprehensive judgment reflects the court's consideration of the petitioner's background, legal rights under the Limitation Act, and the need for a fair and expeditious resolution of the arbitration request.