9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o question of entertaining the petitions of the District Judge beyond the 120 days period. The Court finds no error having been committed by the learned District Judge in the impugned orders - Petition dismissed. - Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 37571 And 37572 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2021 - S. Muralidhar Chief Justice And B.P. Routray, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Amitav Das, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate Mr. Dibya Keshari Biswal. Mr. D.K. Biswal, Advocate For Caveator in both the cases. JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ 1. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Keonjhar has filed both the writ petitions pertaining to Arbitration Case Nos.6 of 2019 and 5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24th November, 2018 the Arbitrator directed the LAO-cum-Competent Authority to recalculate the compensation at ₹ 13,590/- per square meter. According to the NHAI, instead of passing the award himself, he gave the above direction to the LAO and Competent Authority. 5. List of dates and notes of submissions have been furnished by Mr. Amitav Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner (NHAI) in both the matters. From these documents it is seen that the order dated 24th November, 2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator was received by the Special LAO on 29th December, 2018. It is stated that the NHAI decided to challenge the said orders under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( A C Act ) after getting approval of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the petitions under Section 34 of the A C Act before the learned District Judge and therefore, ought to have been condoned by the learned District Judge. 9. As it transpired, by the impugned order, the District Judge declined to condone the delay relying on the decisions in Union of India v. Popular Construction Company (2001) Suppl. 3 SCR 619 ; State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 4 SCC 616 and State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173. 10. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, refers to Section 3-G (5) (6) of the NH Act which incorporates by reference the provisions of the A C Act as far as filing the petitions under Section 34 of the Act to challenge the Awa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther period of thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. The use of the words but not thereafter in the proviso makes it clear that the extension cannot be beyond thirty days. Even if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is given to the respondent, there will still be a delay of 131 days in filing the application. That is beyond the strict timelines prescribed in subsection (3) read along with the proviso to Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The delay of 131 days cannot be condoned. To do so, as the High Court did, is to breach a clear statutory mandate. 12. The language of the provision is abundantly clear and does not admit of any ambiguity. There is no question of entertaining the petitions of the District J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
