JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. The appellant challenges the order dated 20th March, 1986 passed by the lower Court in Misc. Application No. 145/81 rejecting the objections filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called as the said Act) to the award dated 6-11-81.

3. The appellant is a registered partnership firm and was awarded the contract of canal work in relation to Jayakwadi project. The appellant had applied the services of the respondent No. 2 on contract basis and the payments thereof were made either to the respondent No. 2 himself or in the name of his firm i.e. respondent No. 1. At some point of time, dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents, and one of the partners of the appellant-firm by name Bhupindersing signed an agreement agreeing for reference of dispute to arbitration pursuant to which award dated 6-11-81 was delivered.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the reference of dispute to arbitration by Bhupindersing was without consent of the partners of the appellant and therefore, award is not binding upon the appellants. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that Bhupindersing had implied consent of all the partners for reference of dispute to the arbitration, besides the partners of the appellant by their conduct had either ratified the agreement executed by Bhupindersing or waived their right to object to the award, apart from the fact that the objections filed by the appellants were beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing objection under sections 30 and 33 of the said Act.

5. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and on perusal of the records, the following questions arise for determination :

(1) Whether the objections filed by the appellants under sections 30 and 33 of the said Act, were within the period of limitation prescribed for the same ?

(2) Whether Bhupindersing held consent of all the partners of the appellant firm for reference of dispute between the appellants and the respondents to arbitration?

(3) Whether the partners of the appellant by their conduct had ratified the said agreement or had waived their right to object to the award?

6. As regards the first point for consideration, it is not in dispute that the award is dated 6-11-1981, it was filed in the Court on 13-11-1981, the appellant had filed a Caveat Application in the lower Appellate Court on 18-11-1981 and the objections were filed only on 5-1-1982. According to the learned advocate for the respondents, the objections have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that the notice of filing of the award was given to the appellant on 10-12-1981 and considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Dewan Singh v. Champat Singh and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 967, the objections were filed within the period of limitation. Article 119(c) of the Limitation Act provides period of limitation for setting aside the award to be of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of filing of the award. There is no dispute that the notice of filing of award in question was given to the appellant herein on 10th December, 1981. As already pointed out above, there is no dispute that the objections were filed on 5th January, 1982 and that means the objections were filed within thirty days from the date of service of notice of filing of the award. Undisputedly, there is no proof of any such notice of filing of the award having been served upon the appellant prior to 10-12-1981. Being so the objection having been filed within thirty days from 10th December, 1981, it cannot be said that the objections were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act. In that regard, the appellants

Click Here to Read the rest of this document