Uttarakhand High Court
Khursheed Ali (Deceased) & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 10 January, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.3633 of 2023
Khursheed Ali (Deceased) & others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Sachin, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel(s) along with Mr.
Devesh Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for
respondent no.2-N.H.A.I.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the order dated
20.09.2023 passed by learned District Judge, U.S. Nagar
in Arbitration Case No.22 of 2018, Project Director
National Highway vs. Khurshid Ali & others, whereby the
objection of the petitioner i.e. 22C was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. From perusal of the record, the facts which are
not in dispute that an arbitration award was passed by
the Arbitrator on 13.05.2016 and there-against the
respondent-N.H.A.I. had filed an application for setting-
aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") in the court of
District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 09.04.2018. The
said application was registered as Arbitration Case No.22
of 2018, Project Director National Highway vs. Khurshid
Ali & others, the notices were issued to the petitioners
and an Application No.22C was filed by them objecting
that the arbitration case under Section 34 of the Act is
highly beyond time, as according to the law, only 90 days
limitation is there to challenge the award under Section
34 of the Act. In the application, it is also stated by the
petitioners that the award was in the knowledge of the
respondent-N.H.A.I., as a writ petition was filed before
this Court and in that writ petition, the N.H.A.I. has put
in appearance, therefore, they were well aware of the
award and accordingly, the same is beyond time, even if
it is taken from the date of knowledge.
4. Against the said objection, it is submitted by
respondent-N.H.A.I. that the copy of the arbitration
award was received by it on 10.01.2018 and if the
limitation is counted from the date of receipt of the copy
of arbitration award, there is no delay in filing the
application under Section 34 of the Act. A reliance was
placed by N.H.A.I. upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Benarsi Krishna Committee &
others vs. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited in SLP(C)
No.23860 of 2010, wherein it has been mandated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the period of limitation shall be
counted from the date of receipt of the arbitration award
and not from the date of knowledge of the award.
Accordingly, the learned District Judge did not find
faovur with the arguments submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner and accordingly, the application was
rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
the same arguments, which was advanced before learned
District Judge that the petition filed by the N.H.A.I. if
taken even from the date of knowledge of the award, is
beyond time. But to the mandate, which has been given
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Benarsi Krishna
Committee (Supra), there is no answer from the side of
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Having heard the rival contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the judgment and order dated
20.09.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, U.S.
Nagar in Arbitration Case No.22 of 2018, Project Director
National Highway vs. Khurshid Ali & others. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. No order as to
costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
10.01.2024
AK
