Union Of India vs Whale Graphics (India) Ltd.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5306 Del

                   HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO 254/2013 & FAO 257/2013


                                     Decided on : 19th November, 2013

       UNION OF INDIA                                    ..... Appellant

                          Through:      Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.

                          versus

       WHALE GRAPHICS (INDIA) LTD.                       ..... Respondent

                          Through:


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

       V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

CM No.9255/2013 (Condonation of Delay) in FAO 254/2013 CM No.9316/2013 (Condonation of Delay) in FAO 257/2013

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There is an application in

each of the matters seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in re-

filing the appeals. The reasons for the delay are given in the

applications as unavoidable reasons. The details of these reasons

are stated to be that on 11.04.2013, an appeal was filed vide diary

no.56789 of 2013. However certain objections were raised by the

Registry as a consequence of which the appeal was collected back

on 15.04.2013. One of the main objections which were raised by

the Registry was non attachment of the certified copies of the

complete record of the trial court as well as the impugned order.

The counsel was stated to have got in touch with the

appellant/department through letters and over telephone for the

purpose of obtaining the certified copies. However, the department

informed that though the certified copies were obtained, but they

had been misplaced. The other objection raised by the Registry

was that the requisite court fees had also not been paid by the

appellant and therefore some time was taken for obtaining the

necessary approval for sanctioning the payment of the requisite

court fees. It was stated that despite sincere efforts to trace out the

record, the same did not yield any result till accidentally they found

that the certified copies of the record had been tied along with the

bunch of judgment files kept in the record room whereafter steps

were taken to re-file the appeals which resulted in 19 days delay in

re-filing.

2. In the entire application, it has not been stated that the delay

which had occurred was on account of 'sufficient cause' which is

one of the ingredients under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Moreover, very purpose of enactment of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 is to have an expeditious disposal of the

disputes between the contracting parties. In the instant cases, the

arbitrator had passed an award in favour of the respondents to the

tune of `1,90,491.15 along with interest at the rate of 15% per

annum in FAO No.254/2013 and to the tune of `4,98,146/- in FAO

No.257/2013 respectively from the date of the award till the date of

realization of the payment. The objections were filed in respect of

both these awards by the appellant and the same were considered

on merits by the learned ADJ and since no merit was found in the

objections, the same were dismissed.

3. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

lays down a period of 90 days for filing of objections to an arbitral

award and it is further stated in the proviso that the said period of

limitation may be extended by another 30 days and not beyond

that. There is a settled legal position in this regard that the

objections to an arbitral award have to be necessarily filed within a

period of 120 days and courts have no power to extend the period

of limitation for filing objections to an arbitral award beyond the

period of 120 days by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.Popular Construction Co.;

(2001) 8 SCC 470. The purpose of referring to the said Section 34

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to show that the

legislators in their wisdom wanted to put some time limit within

which objections to an award could be raised. Otherwise, the

entire purpose of enacting a legislation to have the expeditious

disposal of the disputes between the contracting parties would get

defeated.

4. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to accept the

explanation given by the appellant for condoning the delay and,

therefore, the applications are dismissed.

FAO No.254/2013 and CM Nos.9253-9254/2013 FAO No.257/2013 and CM No.9315/2013

1. In view of the dismissal of the condonation of delay

applications, the appeals have become time barred and are

accordingly dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J

NOVEMBER 19, 2013/dm