Jharkhand High Court
M/S. A.B. Singh vs Central Coalfields Limited on 11 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4738 of 2011
M/s. A.B. Singh, a partnership firm, having its office at Phusro, P.O.-
Phusro, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro through its partner Bijay Narain
Singh, son of Late A.B. Singh, Resident of Phusro Bazar, P.O.-
Phusro, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Enterprise,
through its General Manager (Transport), Central Coalfields Limited,
Ranchi, Darbhanga House, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District-
Ranchi ... ... Respondent
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate
: Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
: Mr. Badal Vishal, Advocate
----
17/11.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"(a) For quashing/setting aside the order dated 12.08.2010
(Annexure-7) passed by the learned Sub-judge, Bermo at
Tenughat in Misc. Case No.3 of 2010, whereby and
whereunder the learned court below, without considering and
verifying the period of delay in filing the application under
Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been pleased to allow
the said application filed by the Respondent u/s 34(2)
alongwith the petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (Annexure-5) and thereafter the said application of the
Respondent filed under section 34(2) of the Act, for setting
aside the award by the Arbitrator passed in A.A. No.26/2003
dated 30.03.2007 was admitted.
(b) For quashing and setting aside the order dated
20.01.2011 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I,
Bermo at Tenughat in Misc. (Arb.) No.3 of 2010, whereby and
whereunder the said learned Court has been pleased to
dismiss the review petition filed by the petitioner for reviewing
the order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-7) passed by the
learned Sub-Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Misc. (A) No.3 of
2010.
(c) For a direction upon the learned court below to hear the
parties afresh and decide the objection of the petitioner in
right prospective after proper consideration of delay in filing
the application by the respondent u/s 34(2) alongwith the
petition under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963."
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved with the order
condoning delay in filing the petition for setting aside the award
primarily under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. This case arises out of award dated 19.03.2007 which has been
set-aside by the learned court below during the pendency of this case
passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No.03/2010 pursuant to an
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 filed by the respondent-CCL. The order of condonation of delay
in challenging the award passed on the petition under Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 is under challenge in this writ petition. The
appeal arising out of order passed in Misc. Arbitration Case
No.03/2010 has been separately considered and decided today in
Arbitration Appeal no. 2 of 2018.
5. It is not in dispute that the Misc. Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2010
was arising out of an award relatable to Arbitration Application No.
25 of 2003.
6. In the order dated 25.04.2023 passed in the writ petition, it has
been specifically recorded that the award in the present case is dated
19.03.2007 and that the date of challenging the award before the
Court at Ranchi was 07.07.2007 which was filed with a petition for
condonation of delay under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The dates and some details regarding the
award have been incorrectly mentioned in the writ petition at several
places. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has furnished a list of dates mentioning the
Arbitration Application No. 25 of 2003 and the corresponding award
was published on 19.03.2007 which was challenged under Section
34(2) alongwith application under Section 34(3) on 07.07.2007 i.e.
after 109 days from the date of award and the delay of 19 days after
initial period of three months. Even the respondents have filed their
list of dates and there is no dispute in connection with date of award,
the Arbitration Application Case Number and the date of filing the
application for setting aside the award before the court of learned Sub-
Judge-I at Ranchi. Consequently, based on the lower court records,
the arbitration application case is taken as A.A. No. 25 of 2003 and
the date of publication of the award is taken as 19.03.2007 and the
date of challenging of the award before the learned Sub-Judge-I,
Ranchi is taken as 07.07.2007. These dates are not in dispute.
7. With regard to the writ petition, the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as recorded in the order dated 25.04.2023 is
as follows:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the writ
petition being W.P. (C) No. 4738 of 2011 has submitted that
the remaining dates are identical as that of W.P. (C) No. 4735
of 2011 except that the date of award in this case is
19.03.2007 and the date of challenging the award before the
court at Ranchi is 07.07.2007 which was filed with a petition
for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the limitation act.
He submits that subsequently the award was challenged in the
same manner as has been done in other case i.e. W.P. (C) No.
4735 of 2011 i.e. with a petition under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act before the court at Tenughat."
8. It is not in dispute that this writ petition relates to A.A. No. 25
of 2003, the award was published on 19.03.2007 and application
under Section 34(2) of the aforesaid Act of 1996 alongwith a petition
for condonation of delay of 19 days was filed on 07.07.2007. The
prayer for condonation of delay was within condonable period in
terms of Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1996. The petition was
dismissed on want of territorial jurisdiction vide order dated
15.12.2007 which was challenged after 82 days before the High Court
on 07.03.2008 and the appeal was dismissed on 09.12.2009. The
remaining sequence of events is almost same as that of WP(C) No.
4735 of 2011. The impugned order in this case is also on the same
lines as that of order impugned in WP(C) No. 4735 of 2011.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts as well as the submissions made
on dated 25.04.2023 as quoted above and upon perusal of the records,
this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 4735 of 2011, which
has been dismissed today itself.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed.
11. The fact remains that during the pendency of the writ petition,
the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 for setting aside the award has also been rejected by the learned
court below and is subject matter for consideration in Arbitration
Appeal No.2 of 2018 which is also being decided today.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
