Delhi High Court
S.L. Builders vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 September, 2002
Author: R Chopra
Bench: R Chopra
JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act' only) are directed against the Award dated
1.12.2000. The I.A. No. 1233/02 is an application under
Section 34(3) of the Act read with Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condensation of delay in the filing of
the objections and Suit No. 35-A/2000 is an application
under Section 14 and 15 and 17 of the Arbitration act,
1940 for directing the Arbitrator to file the Award and
for correction of an arithmetical error time Award
with regard to claims No. 9 and 11 or in the alternative
an order remitting the Award to the Arbitration for
correction. OMP. No. 167/2002 raises objections under
Section 34 of the Act against the impugned Award dated
1.12.2000.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I
have gone through the records.
3. The petitioner's objections under Section 34 of
the Act against the Award are admittedly beyond
limitation as there is a delay of 406 days in filing the
objections petition. The ground raised for condoning the
delay is that the Award though received in the office of
the Objector on 20th December, 2000 had to be examined
at various levels in the Departments of the Objector and
required engagement of a Counsel through Ministry of Law
and hence delay. In a recent judgment pronounced by
the Apex Court in Union of India v. Popular
Construction Co. reported in JT 2001 (8) Sc 271, it has
been held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not
apply and the period prescribed under Section 34 of the
Act for filing objections has to be strictly adhered to.
In view of this Judgment of the Apex Court the
objections could be filed only within the period
prescribed under Section 34 of the Act and not
thereafter. Recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act
is totally forbidden. Thus the application of the
objector for condensation of delay in filing the
objections is not maintainable.
4. Dismissed accordingly.
OMP No. 167/2002
5. In view of the fact that the instant objections
are beyond the period prescribed by Section 34 of the
Act the same cannot be looked into by the Court for the
purpose of setting aside/modification of the Award dated
1.12.2000. The objections are, therefore, dismissed.
S. No. 35-A/2002
6. Claims No.11 and 12 of the Award show that though
the Arbitrator had held that the claim of the petitioner
for a hike up to 15 per cent on the work executed beyond
time was justified and worked out to be Rs. 73,500/- and
a claim of Rupees one lakh was sustainable on account of
engagement of staff for the extended period yet in the
concluding para regarding claims No. 9 and 11 of the
Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rupees one lakh only and did
not award a sum of Rs. 1,73,500/-. However, a perusal of
the concluding portion of claims No. 9 and 11 of the
Award shows that the Arbitrator opted to Award a sum of
Rs. 1 lac "as a whole". Therefore it cannot be said that
there is any typographical error or mistake in this
regard. If the Arbitrator had intended to Award a sum
of Rs. 73,500/- and Rupees one lakh separately under
Claims No. 9 and 11, he ought not to have used the words
"as a whole" after Rupees one lakh. Therefore, it
cannot be held that there is any typographical mistake
or error in the Award.
7. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
