Bharat Kumar vs Vinod Sharma & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2316 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               F.A.O. No.218/2013, Caveat No.443/2013 and
                        C.M. Nos.7442-7444/2013

                                       Decided on : 17th May, 2013

BHARAT KUMAR                                        ...... Appellant
           Through:               Mr. Sumit Ahuja, Advocate.

                         Versus

VINOD SHARMA & ANR.                                 ...... Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.7444/2013 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.

The application stands disposed of.

C.M. No.7443/2013 (for delay)

This is an application seeking condonation of 81 days' delay in re-

filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 81 days' in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

F.A.O. No.218/2013, Caveat No.443/2013 & C.M. No.7442/2013 (stay)

1. This is the first appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act against the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge dismissing the objections of the appellant under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as being barred

by time.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. I do not find

any merit in the appeal as the objections were inordinately barred by time

and accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed; however, it may be

pertinent here to mention the brief facts of the case. The appellant and

the respondents were before the Arbitrator in respect of a dispute having

arisen between them in terms of the Arbitration Agreement between the

parties with regard to some property and the execution of Agreement to

Sell, GPA, etc. This dispute was settled before the Arbitrator amicably

and the Award was passed on 27.8.2010.

3. Though, the Award was passed on 27.8.2010 but the appellant

chose to file objections to the Award by way of Arbitration Petition

No.191/2012 on 22.3.2012 stating that he received a copy of the Award

for the first time on 23.12.2011 when the objector/petitioner, Bharat

Kumar, appeared along with his counsel before the court of Sh. V.K.

Dhayia, the learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts and

accordingly, there was a delay in filing the objections. In the first

instance, the appellant had even denied his signatures and thumb

impression of having entered into a compromise and had taken a contrary

plea that his signatures on the compromise on the basis of which the

Award was passed, were obtained by threat, coercion and pressure.

4. Be that as it may. The learned Additional District Judge did not

entertain the objections of the appellant by observing that the objections

have to be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the

arbitral award and in any case, the said period of limitation for filing the

objections could not be extended beyond a further period of 30 days in

terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Popular

Construction Company (2001) 8 SCC 470. Accordingly, the objections

were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 31.10.2012.

5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional

District Judge. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality in

appreciation of law or application of the same to the facts of the present

case of the appellant so far as the disposal of his objections are

concerned. The objections are not only barred by time, rather they are

hopelessly barred by time and it seems that the appellant is a person, who

has been taking vacillating stand in different forums. There is no merit in

the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 17, 2013 'AA'