Ati Ram Singh vs M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2636 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO No. 42/2013 & C.M.No.1607/2013

%                                                        22nd May, 2014


ATI RAM SINGH                                     ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr.U.K.Shama with Ms.Urmil
                                         Sharma, Advocates.


                          VERSUS

M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.              ...... Respondent
                 Through: Mr.Sunny Arora, Advocate.




CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This first appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the Court

below dated 16.10.2012, by which objections under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant was dismissed

as being barred by time inasmuch as the same were filed after 120 days.

2.    On 31.3.2014, the following order was passed:-



FAO 42/2013                                                               Page 1 of 3
                 " 1. Appellant has not deposited the decretal amount in
                spite of directions given by this Court on 31.1.2013. It
                is made clear that in case the appellant does not deposit
                the decretal amount at least two weeks before the next
                date of hearing, the appeal will be liable to be dismissed
                for non-prosecution and non-compliance of order. I
                may note that counsel for the appellant states that
                appellant is not contacting him in spite of the efforts
                being made in this regard."

                2.   List on 22nd May, 2014."

3.     Today also, learned counsel for the appellant states that he has no

instructions.


4.     I have gone through impugned judgment. It is clear from the same

that objections were barred by time. Once actions were barred by time, it is

settled law that the same cannot be entered in view of the judgment in the

case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. (2008) 9

SCC.


5.     Once the notice accompanying the Award is sent to the correct

address, the trial court was justified in relying upon Section 3(b) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act to hold that the Award was served upon the

appellant, and on such service, period of limitation commenced for filing of

objections.


FAO 42/2013                                                                  Page 2 of 3
 6.    In view of above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MAY 22, 2014                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

KA