9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act") has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order held that the explanation for delay of nearly two months in re-filing is not satisfactory. 2. The Award that is challenged by way of Section 34 petition was pronounced by the sole Arbitrator on 29.10.2009. A copy thereof was made available to the parties on the same date. Objections under Section 34 were filed on 23.01.2013. The three months period, as prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act, ended on 29.01.2013. The petition filed under Section 34 was scrutinized by the Registry on 23.01.2013 and was returned under objections for being re-filed within a period of seven days. The court fees required to be paid on the Section 34 petition was 1% of the awarded amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no amount of court fees was sanctioned and due to shortage of time. 8. That the Registry after filing of the aforesaid petition had raised objections that the petitioner/applicant should mention the awarded amount in the objection and court fee be affixed accordingly as relevant rules. 9. That accordingly the Petitioner/Applicant through Counsel added the valuation in the objection Petition by calculating the same and requested the officials of the Railways to arrange the court fee. 10. That the award has been given by the Arbitrator is almost about 9 Crore. The huge amount of court fees was to be paid. The Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant accordingly informed the officials of Railways that more than Rs.8,92,000/- amount of cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng all the objections. However some other objection was raised, for attestation of further court fees and additional court fees was paid and objection was removed and again re-filed. 14. That in the meanwhile, the High Court Rules were amended and notification was issued that a soft copy of the petition is filed with the hard copy in regard the arbitration cases. It was a new notification it took some time to understand the system of preparing and filing of the soft copy and then it came to notice that some agency in the filing counter is also preparing and giving soft copy of the petition and therefore entire petition was handed over to the agency for preparing it in soft copy. This took some time and finally the some new objection was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys permissible for re-filing and (2) the Petitioner/Applicant re-filed the petition beyond the period specified by the Filing Counter. The relevant dates in this regard are as under:- Sl. No. Date of filing Delay 1. 23.01.2013 First filed on this date, within 90 days from date of award dated 29.10.2012. 2. 23.01.2013 It was scrutinized by the registry out the same date, defects were listed out and the Applicant was directed to re-file within a week i.e. seven (7) days. Seven days expired on 30.01.2013. 3. 27.01.2013 Statutory period of 90 days to file objections under section 34 of the Act of 1996 expired. 4. 21.02.2013 This petition was re-filed after 29 days. This is clearly beyond the specified period of seven (7) days spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sankiila : 1995 RLR 85 held that non-filing of the court fees is a substantive defect which renders the filing itself non est. Besides that, the learned Single Judge found that there was no explanation as to why it would take a month to deposit the requisite court fees and nearly two months to cure the defects and re-file the petition. As regards the delay in re-filing between March and April, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the explanation offered is that a practice direction was issued by this Court requiring a soft copy of the petition to be filed and this took some time. The learned Single Judge did not find the explanation satisfactory and held that preparation of a soft copy of the petition, by no stretch of imagination, cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh, the court fees was not filed for over a period of one month from the date of filing. The explanation tendered is that the amount was substantial and as such it took some time in the amount being credited into the account of the counsel and then being credited to the account of the Stock Holding Corporation for the purposes of obtaining the court fees. The appellant should have been diligent in obtaining and filing the requisite court fees. Merely because a substantial amount was required to be paid as court fees, cannot be a ground to circumvent the statutory provision of limitation. 8. In arbitration matters, the limitation has to be strictly construed and the parties cannot be permitted to frustrate the very purpose of the Act. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
