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. 4760 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 Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
---
06/11.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The writ petition being W.P.(C). No.4760 of 2011 has been
filed for the following reliefs:
"(a) For quashing/setting aside the order dated 12.08.2010
(Annexure-7) passed by the learned Sub-judge, Bermo at
Tenughat in Misc. (A) Case No.02 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.28/2003
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. (A) No.02 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.02 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ
petition is connected with Arbitration Appeal No. 05 of 2017. Learned
counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions in the connected
writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.4745 of 2011 and submitted that the only
difference in the present case is that the award is dated 23.12.2006
which was initially challenged before the court at Ranchi on
12.03.2007 and such filing was within the period of limitation and
therefore, it was not accompanied by any petition for condonation of
delay in term of Section 34(3). The learned counsel submitted that rest
of the arguments in connection with Section 14 in the present case is
covered by the arguments advanced in W.P. (C) No. 4745 of 2011
which he duly advanced.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
adopted the arguments advanced in W.P. (C) No. 4745 of 2011 and
submitted that it is not in dispute that the award was challenged
initially within the period of limitation.
5. 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.
6. This case arises out of award dated 23.12.2006 which has been
set-aside by the learned court below during the pendency of this case
passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No.02/2010 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.02/2010 has been separately considered and decided today in
Arbitration Appeal No. 05 of 2017.
7. It is not in dispute that the Misc. Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2010
was arising out of an award relatable to Arbitration Application No.
28 of 2003.
8. The award was published on 23.12.2006; application under
Section 34(2) of the aforesaid Act of 1996 was filed within the period
of limitation. The petition was dismissed on want of territorial
jurisdiction vide order dated 15.12.2007 which was challenged 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 W.P.(C) No. 4735 of 2011. The impugned order in this case is also
on the same lines as that of the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 4735
of 2011.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances 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. The W.P.
(C) No. 4745 of 2011 has been also dismissed today by holding that it
is similar to W.P. (C) No. 4735 of 2011.
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. 05 of 2017 which is also being decided today.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
