Full Text
C.M. Nos.7442-7444/2013
Date of Decision: 17th May, 2013
BHARAT KUMAR …… Appellant
Through: Mr. Sumit Ahuja, Advocate.
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.7444/2013 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.
The application stands disposed of.
C.M. No.7443/2013 (for delay)
This is an application seeking condonation of 81 days’ delay in re- filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 81 days’ in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
2013:DHC:2584 F.A.O. No.218/2013, Caveat No.443/2013 & C.M. No.7442/2013 (stay)
JUDGMENT
1. This is the first appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the objections of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as being barred by time.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. I do not find any merit in the appeal as the objections were inordinately barred by time and accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed; however, it may be pertinent here to mention the brief facts of the case. The appellant and the respondents were before the Arbitrator in respect of a dispute having arisen between them in terms of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties with regard to some property and the execution of Agreement to Sell, GPA, etc. This dispute was settled before the Arbitrator amicably and the Award was passed on 27.8.2010.
3. Though, the Award was passed on 27.8.2010 but the appellant chose to file objections to the Award by way of Arbitration Petition No.191/2012 on 22.3.2012 stating that he received a copy of the Award for the first time on 23.12.2011 when the objector/petitioner, Bharat Kumar, appeared along with his counsel before the court of Sh. V.K. Dhayia, the learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts and accordingly, there was a delay in filing the objections. In the first instance, the appellant had even denied his signatures and thumb impression of having entered into a compromise and had taken a contrary plea that his signatures on the compromise on the basis of which the Award was passed, were obtained by threat, coercion and pressure.
4. Be that as it may. The learned Additional District Judge did not entertain the objections of the appellant by observing that the objections have to be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the arbitral award and in any case, the said period of limitation for filing the objections could not be extended beyond a further period of 30 days in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company (2001) 8 SCC 470. Accordingly, the objections were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 31.10.2012.
5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality in appreciation of law or application of the same to the facts of the present case of the appellant so far as the disposal of his objections are concerned. The objections are not only barred by time, rather they are hopelessly barred by time and it seems that the appellant is a person, who has been taking vacillating stand in different forums. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. MAY 17, 2013 ‘AA’