9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act of 1940') for getting the award filed in original alongwith depositions and documents in court which was contested by Non-objector/claimant. By the order dated 4th October 2001 this application was dismissed. Objector was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the objections within the period of 3 months. It was prayed that by invoking proviso appended to sub section (3) of section 34 of the Act of 1996 the objections may be allowed to be entertained. I.A.11576/01 was filed in continuation of I.A. 10715/01 on 12th December 2001 for entertaining the Objections explaining the circumstances how the Objector was under the bonafide belief that award dated 30th June 2001 was governed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement executed between them, were governed by the Act of 1996 and not the Act of 1940. This finding was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench by the order dated 12th December 2001 and in SLP by the Supreme Court by the order dated 23rd August 2002. In my opinion, these orders would not come in the way of Objector as regards entertaining of Objections under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as they pertained only to the non-maintainability of application under section 14 of the Act of 1940. This brings me to the main question if the applications on hand disclose sufficient cause for entertaining the Objections (OMP 367/01) as also effect of re-filing the Objections after removing objections on 17th Novembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. On 17th October 1987 the office again returned the plaint pointing out objection No. (iii) having not been removed. Plaint was represented on the same day and directed to be listed before the Registrar for admission on 29th October 1987 whereafter summons were isued to the defendants., Noticing Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter 4 of Delhi High Court (O.S) Rules, 1967, in Para No. 10 (at page 89) it was held:- Looking to the language of the Rules framed by Delhi High Court, it appears that the emphasis is on the nature of defects found in the plaint, If the defects are of such character as would render a plaint, a non-plaint in the eye of law, then the date of presentation would be the date of re-filing after removal of defects. If the defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation was without signature and .application was re-filed after removing that objection on 27th March 1996. Delay of about 200 days in re-filing the application was condoned on the ground that apart from casual approach on the part of counsel of defendant there was no malafide intention on the part of defendant to delay the proceedings. Aforementioned twin defects pointed out by the Registry, obviously, were defects not so substantial in character as would render the Objections (OMP 367/01) to a no-objection nor any malafide intention could be attributed to the Objector in filing the objections with defects to delay the proceedings. Taking note of the ratio of aforesaid decisions the re-presentation of Objections after removing defects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
