Union of India v. M/S JITCO OVERSEAS LTD

2. The appeals arise from the common order passed by the learned single 2018:DHC:8718-DB Judge on 31" May, 2016 in OMPNos. 209-212/2014.

3. In FAO(OS) No.34/2017, the appellant have also challenged order dated 26"' July. 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Review Application No. 7909/2016. The appellant did not file Review Applications in the other OMPs.

4. Thecase has achequeredhistoiy which is required to be noticed only briefly, as under: 4.[1] The appellant and the respondent /contractor had entered into four separate contracts, details ofwhich are not required to be noticed due to the limited controversy involved. 4.[2] The respondent /contractor had filed an application under Section 11 ofthe A&C Act in the Delhi High Court which was allowed vide order dated 31'^ October, 2003. 4.[3] Arbitration proceedings resulted in four awards all dated 16"- March, 2009 partly allowing the claims ofthe respondent /contractor. 4.[4] On l?"" July, 2009 the appellant preferred one consolidated application under Section 34 ofthe A&C Act challenging four awards, which was filed before the District Judge, Allahabad. 4.[5] After about four years, on 27"- July, 2013, the application filed before the District Judge, Allahabad was withdrawn for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Original applicationwas returned to the appellantto be filed before the appropriate court, but no date ortimeperiod was fixed for such filing. 4.[6] Nearly six months thereafter on 8'*' January, 2014, the appellant filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the Delhi High Court. Typed copy ofthe application under Section 34 ofthe A&C Act. which was filed before the District Judge, Allahabad was enclosed with theapplication.

5 Even ifwe accept the contention ofthe appellant that the application filed on S-' January, 2014 under Sections 30 &33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be treated as an application under Section 34 ofthe A&C Act, the same would be clearly barred by limitation in terms ofthe period specified in sub-section (3) to Section 34 ofthe A&C Act. Objections under Section 34 ofthe A&C Act can be filed within three months and maximum delay of 30 days can be condoned. Delay beyond the period of30 days cannot be condoned. Even if we exclude the period between V" July, 2009 to 27' July, 2013 when proceeding was pending before the District Judge, Allahabad, the delay would be beyond the condonable period of 30 days. The impugned order, therefore, rightly holds that the objections filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act were barred by limitation and the excessive delay beyond 30 days cannot be condoned.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondentcontractor had filed applications under Sections 14 and 17 ofthe Arbitration Act, 1940 for making awards rule ofthe Court on 15 April, 2009, which applications were allowed and the four awards were made Rule ofthe Court, vide « parte order dated 12'» August, 2011. Subsequently, the appellant had filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 for setting aside the exparte order dated 12''August, 2011, which was allowed by the single Judge by order dated 4" August, 2015 holdingthat the applications under Sections 14and 17 ofthe Arbitration Act were not maintainable; and then the provisions of A&CAct, 1996 were applicable.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon observations in the order dated 4^^ August, 2015 that the appellant was entitled to take recourse to proceedings under Section 34 of the A & C Act. This order would not help and assist the appellant in overcoming the limitation period specified in sub-section (3) to Section 34 of the A & C Act. Order dated 4*^ August, 2015 also specifically records that the Court was not examining the issue of limitation, jurisdiction, etc.

8. On 19*^ March, 2014, the appellant had withdrawn the objections filed in the Delhi High Court on 8'*' January, 2014. The effect thereofwas that the objections filed on January, 2014 did not survive. Thereafter on 2"^* December, 2014 the appellant filed an application for revival of the objections. Impugned order was passed thereafter.

9. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the objections filed by the appellant were clearly barred by limitation and were, therefore, rightly dismissed. The appealhas no merit and is dismissed without any order as to DECEMBER 03, 2018 MR/ssn/VKR SANJIV KHANNA, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.