AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, dated December 9. 1986, whereby the objection petition filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board against the award dated May 23, 1985, was dismissed as barred by time.
The arbitrator filed the award in Court vide application dated February 13, 1986. On February 17, 1986, the learned Subordinate Judge issued notice to the parties for filing reply, if any, thereto, and the case was adjourned to May 14, 1986. On that day when the case was taken up, nobody was present on behalf of the Haryana State Electricity Board and, therefore, the Court ordered ex-pone proceedings. The case was adjourned to August, 18, 1986, that every day The said Board moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. Earlier, it was being contested on behalf of the contractor, but lateron, the statement was made that the ex-parte order be set aside. Consequently, vide order dated October 25, 1986, the Court passed the following order:
"Statement recorded. In view of his statement order dated 6 5.86 is sot aside. Now to come up for further proceedings on 31.10.86 because the case has been so adjourned. Neither Asian Cables has filed an application for making the award as a rule of the Court, nor the H. S. E. B. has filed objections."
On October 31, 1986, the counsel for the parties made a request for a date and the case was adjourned to November 2%, 1986, for further proceedings. On November 24, 1986, objection to the award were filed on behalf of the Haryana State Electricity Board, on behalf of the contractor, Asian Cables Corporation Ltd. it was pleaded that the objection petition was barred by time, as the same were not filed within 30 days of service of the notice of the award. The learned Subordinate Judge found force therein and dismissed the objections vide impugned order dated December 9, 1986. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the parties appeared in this Court on May 14, 1986, but none of them filed any objection petition till November 24, 1986. The objection petition filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board on November 24, 1986, was beyond limitation Consequently, the award dated May 23, 1985 was made the rule of the Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objections filed on November 24, 1986, were within time from the order setting aside the ex parte proceedings on October 25, 1986. According to the learned counsel, the period of 30 days starts from the date when the ex-parte proceedings were stayed and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in this behalf was wrong and illegal.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the limitation is provided under Article 119 of the Limitation Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for filing the objections to the award. According to the said article, the period of 30 days to set aside an award begins to run from the date of the service of the notice and the making of the award. Thus, argued the learned counsel, when the Haryana State Electricity Board was served for May 14, 1986 the objections should have been filed within 30 days from the date when they were served for the date. Having failed to file any objection within the period prescribed the objections filed off November 24, 1986, were barred by time. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Madan Lal Vs. Sunderlal and Another,
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.
The limitation for filing the objections to an award, under the Arbitration Act, is provided under Article 119 of the Act, it inter alia provides that the period of limitation for setting aside an award is 30 days from the date of the service of the notices of the filing of the award. That being so, it could not be successfully argued that the limitation for the same will begin from May 14, 1986, when the ex-parte order was set aside It is not disputed that the Haryana State Electricity Board was served for May 14, 1986. The objections were to be filed within 30 days when the notice issued for the date on February 17,1986 was served on it. Having failed to file any objection within time the objection petition filed on November 24, 1986, was barred by time. Thus, there is no illegality in the impuged order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.
It was ruled in Madan Lal''s case (supra), that if a party wants an arbitration award to set aside on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, it must apply within 30 days of the date of the service of the notice of the filing of the award as provided in Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908. If no such application is made, the award cannot be set aside on any of the grounds specified in Section 30 of the Act.
Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.