Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS)
(COMM)106/2016 U.P.TECHNICALEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT
Appellant Represented by: Mr.Anil Mittal and Ms.Komal
Aggarwal,Advs.
FAO(OS)
(COMM)107/2016 UP TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Appellant
FAO(OS)
(COMM)108/2016 UP TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Appellant
2016:DHC:8584-DB
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YOGESHKHANNA
08.11.2016 CMNo.41076inFAOroS)
(COMM^ 106/901^ CMNo.41482FAOfOS)fCOMM^ 107/2016
CMNo.41589FAOrOS^ rcOMM)108/2016 Exemption is allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
FAGCOS)
(COMM)106/201A FAO(OS)rCOMMi 107/201^ FAOfOS^ rCQMlVE 108/2016
ORDER
1. Three awards,each dated February20,2015,were challenged bythe appellants under Section 34 ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There wasa delay of333 days in laying a challenge tothethree awards and thusan application underSection34(3)read with Section 151 ofthe Codeof CivilProcedure was filed in each petition praying that333 days in laying a challenge to the three awards be condoned.
2. In view ofthe authoritative pronouncement ofthe Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 2001 SC 4010 Union ofIndia v. M/s Pnnulnr Construction Company, the learned Single Judge has held that the law declaredthereinshall bind and notthelaw declared bytheSupreme Courtin the decision reported as 2005(6)SCC 344Salem.Advocate BarAssocintinr,
V. Union of
3. Suffice itto statethat where aissue pertaining to the construction ofa statute directly arises and is the subject matter of an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court; there is no scope to argue on the analogy of law declared in some other decision dealing with some other statute.
4. The law declared by the Supreme Court in Povular Construction's case (supra) is that Sub-section 3 of Section 34 of the Arbitration and ^ Conciliation Act, 1996 and its proviso makes it clear that the power ofthe Court to condone delay in laying objection to an award is restricted to the period of30 days as contemplated bythe proviso to Sub-section 3ofSection 34 ofthe Act;and no more.
5. Concurring with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we dismiss the three appeals in limine and thus, there shall be no order as to costs. CMNo.41075 FAQfOS)TCOMMl 106/2016 CMNo.41481 FAQtOS)rCOMM^ 107/2016 CMNo.41588 FAOrOS^ rCQMM^ 108/2016 Since the appeals have been dismissed in limine, above captioned three applications, which seek stay of the operation of the awards dated February 20,2015 are dismissed. No costs.
PRADEEP NA^RAiJOG,J. NOVEMBER 08,2016 VLD YOGESH KHA^A,J. FAOfOS)(COMM)106/2016&conn. Page3of[3]