Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Jasbir Singh on 17 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 364/2015
% 17th April, 2017
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Yadav,
Advocate.
versus
JASBIR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivekanand, 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 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'The Act') impugns the judgment of
the court below dated 26.7.2014, by which the court below has
dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the
Act as barred by limitation.
2. It is undisputed that the period of limitation for filing of
objections to the Award is 90 days and with condonation of delay
being allowable for the further period of 30 days. Beyond the period
of 120 days there cannot be condonation of delay in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the Union of India Vs. M/s Popular
Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470.
3. As per the original arbitration record perused by this
Court, copy of the Award was received by the counsel for the appellant
on 12.4.2013. The period of 120 days from 13.4.2013 will expire on
10.8.2013. Objections obviously therefore had to be filed by
10.8.2013. Objections were however filed before the competent court
on 26.8.2013. To the period from 10.8.2013 we have to as per Section
14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 add the period of 8 days from 22.7.2013
till 30.7.2013 inasmuch as this period was wrongly spent by the
appellant in filing the objections before the wrong court in Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi. Even if 9 days are therefore added to
10.8.2013, the last date for filing of the objections would be 19.8.2013.
Objections therefore filed on 26.8.2013 are not only beyond the period
of 120 days but are filed 120 days plus 9 days after receipt of the
Award and are thus barred by limitation by 6 days i.e from 20.8.2013
to 25.8.2013.
4. Since this delay from 20.8.2013 till 26.8.2013 cannot be
condoned in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
M/s Popular Construction Co. (supra), objections under Section 34 of
the Act filed by the appellant therefore have to be dismissed as being
barred by limitation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that appellant
had first approached the Tis Hazari Courts, the court of competent
jurisdiction on 12.8.2013 but the Registry of Tis Hazari Courts refused
to receive the objections and thereafter the appellant went to the Courts
at Dwarka, which too refused to accept the objections, and therefore,
this period also has to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, however it is seen that these averments are only self-serving
averments without any court record that the objections were originally
filed by the appellants in Tis Hazari Courts then being returned under
objections and then refusal by the Courts at Dwarka to receive the
objections. In any case even if we add two more days; one day for
wrong filing in Tis Hazari Courts and one day then of wrong filing at
Dwarka Courts, yet, the objections will be time barred by four days.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and
the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
APRIL 17, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
