9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case. He filed the award dated December 7, 1990 before the Registrar of this Court on May 28, 1991. The Registrar of this Court thereafter issued notices to both the parties with regard to the filing of the award. The petitioner was served with said notice on June 28, 1991. The respondent were served with the same on July 8, 1991. The respondent were thus required to file objections, if any, against the aforesaid award within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. Thus, if the period of limitation is computed from the said date the respondent should have filed their objections by August 7, 1991. However, the respondent for the best reasons known to them filed their objections on August 28, 1991. It impl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reveals that no reason whatsoever was mentioned therein as to why the objections could not be preferred within the statutory period of 30 days from the service of the notice. Similarly, Shri Pyara Singh, Executive Engineer, is conspicuously silent on the point of delay in his affidavit of the same date i.e. August 28, 1991. It appears that the wisdom dawned on the applicant later on when they came forward with another affidavit in the form of an additional affidavit sworn by said Pyara Singh, Executive Engineer, where he tries to make a futile attempt to explain the delay in preferring the said objections. Surprisingly enough no reason whatsoever has been given as to why the said reasons were not enumerated by him in his earlier affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation with regard to this period. As I have already observed above that an applicant is required to explain the delay of each and every day. In the circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the respondent in the present case have miserably failed to explain and to put forward a sufficient cause for the condensation of delay in filing the above said application. Thus, I am of the view that the objections are hopelessly barred by time and as such, they cannot betaken on records Thus, I do not see any force in the present application and the same is liable, to be rejected. It is hereby rejected. 7. In view of the above I. A. No. 9881/90 does not survive and is rejected as such. 8. Shri N. H. Chandwani, the sole arbitrator, filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
