Union of India vs Whale Graphics (India) Ltd.

V.K. Shali, J.

CM No. 9255/2013 (Condonation of Delay) in FAO 254/2013

CM No. 9316/2013 (Condonation of Delay) in FAO 257/2013

These appeals have been filed u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There is an application in each of the matters seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in refiling the appeals. The reasons for the delay are given in the applications as unavoidable reasons. The details of these reasons are stated to be that on 11.04.2013, an appeal was filed vide diary No. 56789 of 2013. However certain objections were raised by the Registry as a consequence of which the appeal was collected back on 15.04.2013. One of the main objections which were raised by the Registry was non attachment of the certified copies of the complete record of the trial court as well as the impugned order. The counsel was stated to have got in touch with the appellant/department through letters and over telephone for the purpose of obtaining the certified copies. However, the department informed that though the certified copies were obtained, but they had been misplaced. The other objection raised by the Registry was that the requisite court fees had also not been paid by the appellant and therefore some time was taken for obtaining the necessary approval for sanctioning the payment of the requisite court fees. It was stated that despite sincere efforts to trace out the record, the same did not yield any result till accidentally they found that the certified copies of the record had been tied along with the bunch of judgment files kept in the record room whereafter steps were taken to re-file the appeals which resulted in 19 days delay in re-filing. In the entire application, it has not been stated that the delay which had occurred was on account of ''sufficient cause'' which is one of the ingredients u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Moreover, very purpose of enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to have an expeditious disposal of the disputes between the contracting parties. In the instant cases, the arbitrator had passed an award in favour of the respondents to the tune of `1,90,491.15 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum in FAO No. 254/2013 and to the tune of `4,98,146/- in FAO No. 257/2013 respectively from the date of the award till the date of realization of the payment. The objections were filed in respect of both these awards by the appellant and the same were considered on merits by the learned ADJ and since no merit was found in the objections, the same were dismissed.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lays down a period of 90 days for filing of objections to an arbitral award and it is further stated in the proviso that the said period of limitation may be extended by another 30 days and not beyond that. There is a settled legal position in this regard that the objections to an arbitral award have to be necessarily filed within a period of 120 days and courts have no power to extend the period of limitation for filing objections to an arbitral award beyond the period of 120 days by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M/s Popular Construction Co., . The purpose of referring to the said Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to show that the legislators in their wisdom wanted to put some time limit within which objections to an award could be raised. Otherwise, the entire purpose of enacting a legislation to have the expeditious disposal of the disputes between the contracting parties would get defeated.

For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to accept the explanation given by the appellant for condoning the delay and, therefore, the applications are dismissed.

FAO No. 254/2013 and CM Nos. 9253-9254/2013

FAO No. 257/2013 and CM No. 9315/2013

In view of the dismissal of the condonation of delay applications, the appeals have become time barred and are accordingly dismissed.