Union of India Vs. M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Brothers
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15569 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15569 of 1999)
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Brothers
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15569 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15569 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 03, 2000
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 30 – Limitation Act 1963 – Section 5 – Arbitration proceedings – Applicability of Limitation Act – Delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitra-tion Act – Courts below holding that the Limitation Act not applicable to the Arbitration proceedings – Whether correct. Held Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the Arbitration proceedings also. Impugned orders of the Courts below set aside. Trial court directed to take up the objections on record and decide the same as per the law within two months. Amounts depos-ited in District Judge Courts was directed to be deposited in any Nationalised Bank. Cost of Rs. 5000 imposed on appellant.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appell-ant and Shri Hanuman Prasad who is present in person on behalf of respondent-firm.
3. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of the case it could not have been said that there was no sufficient cause for the appellant to get the delay of 2 months 22 days in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 condoned in the interest of justice. We also find that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly held inapplicable to the proceedings before Court regarding making the award a rule of the Court. Consequently, on these grounds, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as of the trial court are set aside. The trial court is directed to take up objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on record and to decide the same in accordance with law on merits within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the order at its end. We make it clear that we make no observation on the merits of the objections under Section 30 of the Act which have to be decided by the trial court on its own. As the delay of 2 months 22 days is condoned we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of special cost to the respondent within four weeks from today. In the meantime, Rs.24,37,868/- lying deposited in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur shall be invested by learned District Judge in any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of six months awaiting decision in the remanded proceed-ings and the said deposit can be renewed for further suitable period if so required. In view of the present order, earlier order dated 5.11.1999 directing the appellant to keep a net balance of Rs. 7 lacs in Bank Account No. D-45 with State Bank of India at NCRB Branch, Jaipur does not survive. The appeal is allowed accordingly with Rs. 5,000/- special cost to be paid to the respondent.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appell-ant and Shri Hanuman Prasad who is present in person on behalf of respondent-firm.
3. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of the case it could not have been said that there was no sufficient cause for the appellant to get the delay of 2 months 22 days in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 condoned in the interest of justice. We also find that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly held inapplicable to the proceedings before Court regarding making the award a rule of the Court. Consequently, on these grounds, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as of the trial court are set aside. The trial court is directed to take up objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on record and to decide the same in accordance with law on merits within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the order at its end. We make it clear that we make no observation on the merits of the objections under Section 30 of the Act which have to be decided by the trial court on its own. As the delay of 2 months 22 days is condoned we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of special cost to the respondent within four weeks from today. In the meantime, Rs.24,37,868/- lying deposited in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur shall be invested by learned District Judge in any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of six months awaiting decision in the remanded proceed-ings and the said deposit can be renewed for further suitable period if so required. In view of the present order, earlier order dated 5.11.1999 directing the appellant to keep a net balance of Rs. 7 lacs in Bank Account No. D-45 with State Bank of India at NCRB Branch, Jaipur does not survive. The appeal is allowed accordingly with Rs. 5,000/- special cost to be paid to the respondent.
