SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 504

2000(7) Supreme 69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Brothers -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15569 of 1999)
Decided on 6-3-2000

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before the Court regarding making the arbitration award a rule of Court.

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Section 30-Objections against arbitration award-Delay of 2 months and 22 days in filing of-Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings before Court regarding making award a rule of Court-Sufficient cause shown and delay condoned with cost Rs. 5000. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appellant 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 proceedings 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.

Appeal allowed.

**************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top