Delhi High Court
Panjab Singh vs India Bull Financial Services ... on 9 March, 2016
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 96/2016 & CM APPL.7498-7501/2016
Decided on: 9th March, 2016
PANJAB SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Sadashiv Gupta, Advocate
versus
INDIA BULL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated
19.09.2015 by virtue of which the objections of the appellant
against the award dated 20.07.2012 were dismissed as barred by
the limitation. There was an award passed against the appellant
Punjab Singh in the capacity of a guarantor along with principal
borrower for a sum of Rs.10,95,790/- along with interest @ 2.25
per month starting from 12.05.2012.
2. The learned arbitrator in his award has specifically noted that
despite the notices having been served on the present appellant and
the principal borrower there was no appearance on their behalf and,
therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. Even at the stage of
recording evidence, the matter was adjourned by the learned
arbitrator on three occasions to enable them to appear before him
so as to enable them to cross examine the witnesses. Copies of the
order sheet were also sent to the appellant. Despite this indulgence
shown by the learned arbitrator, still the appellant and the principal
borrower did not respond. Consequently, resulting in passing of an
ex-parte award.
3. The present appellant filed objections contending that the copy of
the award was served on the wife of the principal borrower only in
month of July, 2014 and immediately thereafter he filed the
objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that in
the impugned order dated 19.09.2015, the learned arbitrator has
noted that the copy of the award was served on the wife of
respondent No.1 therein (the principal borrower) in March, 2013
which is factually incorrect. The fact of the matter remains
irrespective of the service of the award the objections which have
been filed by the appellant are beyond a period of 90 days. The
learned arbitrator has relied upon the judgment in Union of India v.
M/s. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470, wherein
it has observed that the learned Court has no power of condone the
delay beyond a period of 90 days and accordingly the objections
were dismissed.
5. Still feeling dissatisfied, the present appeal has been filed. I have
not been shown any provision which will empower the Court to
condone the delay.
6. There is no illegality in the order or any infraction of Section 34 of
the Act so far as the rejection of the objections filed by the
appellant is concerned. Accordingly, the present appeal is without
any merit and the same is dismissed.
7. Since appeal itself is dismissed, therefore, no orders on the
miscellaneous applications are called for.
8. All the applications are accordingly dismissed.
9. File be consigned to record room.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MARCH 09, 2016
vk
