Ati Ram Singh v. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

1. This first appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the Court below dated 16.10.2012, by which objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant was dismissed as being barred by time inasmuch as the same were filed after 120 days.

2. On 31.3.2014, the following order was passed:- 2014:DHC:2741 “ 1. Appellant has not deposited the decretal amount in spite of directions given by this Court on 31.1.2013. It is made clear that in case the appellant does not deposit the decretal amount at least two weeks before the next date of hearing, the appeal will be liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of order. I may note that counsel for the appellant states that appellant is not contacting him in spite of the efforts being made in this regard.”

2. List on 22nd May, 2014.”

3. Today also, learned counsel for the appellant states that he has no instructions.

4. I have gone through impugned judgment. It is clear from the same that objections were barred by time. Once actions were barred by time, it is settled law that the same cannot be entered in view of the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC.

5. Once the notice accompanying the Award is sent to the correct address, the trial court was justified in relying upon Section 3(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to hold that the Award was served upon the appellant, and on such service, period of limitation commenced for filing of objections.

6. In view of above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MAY 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. KA