Chief Engineer Kanpur ... vs Smt. Saroj Agarwal And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 8562 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 61 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Chief Engineer Kanpur Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Smt. Saroj Agarwal And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Himanshu Raghav Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

Order on the Exemption Application

The application is allowed.

Filing of the certified copy of the formal order is dispensed with.

Office to allocate a regular number to the instant appeal.

Order on the Delay Condonation Application

The stamp reporter has reported a delay of 101 days in filing the instant appeal as on 18.8.2022. The appeal was presented before this Court after a week, i.e. on 25.8.2022. Although we find no good ground for delay taking place after the report of the stamp reporter, but having regard to the fact that a short legal question is involved in the appeal and which already stands concluded by various judgments of the Supreme Court, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

Order on the Memo of Appeal

Heard Sri Arun Kumar for the appellant and Sri Himanshu Raghav Pandey for the respondents.

The appeal is directed against the order dated 9.3.2022 passed by Commercial Court, Kanpur in Arbitration Case No. Nil/70 of 2019, rejecting the objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act' herein), as barred by limitation, having been filed with a delay of about seven years and five months.

The facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the arbitral tribunal had given the award on 25.3.2012 and objection was filed against the same on 26.8.2019. The claimant-respondent had filed Execution Case No. 49 of 2014 for execution of the award. In the said proceedings, the appellant entered appearance on 5.2.2015 through its counsel Sri Baldev Raj. Thereafter, another counsel, namely, Sri U.S. Ahuja filed his appearance on behalf of the appellant. The plea of the appellant that it had not received signed copy of the award earlier was duly repelled and it has also been recorded in the impugned order that the appellant had full knowledge of the award as well as the execution proceedings. The objection filed on 28.8.2019 has accordingly been held to have been filed beyond the time prescribed.

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the limitation for filing objection under Section 34 is 90 days, extendable by a further period of 30 days as per Section 34 (3) of the Act. He also does not dispute that as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Manindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod and others, 2022 4 SCC 162, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply and the objection has to be filed within the statutory period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act.

Consequently, we find no merit in the instant appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Prashant Kumar, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 23.3.2023

Jaideep/-