Lokeshwar Prasad,j.

( 1 ) THIS Order will dispose of the application (IA 9643/91), filed by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent DDA ) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act ) for condoning the delay in filing the objection? on behalf of the respondent Delhi Development Authority under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, briefly stated, are that the arbitrator Shri G. R. Hingorani filed the award alongwith the proceedings in the Registry of this Court. On arbitrator s filing the award alongwith the proceedings, statutory notice was issued to the parties directing the parties to file objections, if any, within the prescribed time limit. 2. 1 The limitation for filing an application for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for re-consideration under Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act is 30 days from the day the notice of the filing of the award is served. In the present case, notice of the filing of the award was served on the petitioner and also on the respondent Delhi Development Authority on 27. 05. 1991. No objections to the award have been filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, the respondent DDA has filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act with the prayer that the award made by the learned arbitrator be set aside and remitted back to the arbitrator for re-appraisal on the basis of the submissions made by the respondent Delhi Development Authority in the objection petition. 2. 2 Since the objections to the award, by the respondent DDA, were not filed within the prescribed time limit, the respondt Delhi Development Authority also filed the present application (IA 9643/91) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the prayer that delay, in filing the objections on behalf of the respondent DDA, be condoned and the objection petition be taken on record.

( 3 ) IN the application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it has been stated by the respondent Delhi Development Authority that the delay in filing the objection is mainly on two grounds, namely, inadvertent misplacement of the file in the office of the concerned Executive Engineer of the Delhi Development Authority despite due care and attention and secondly, lapse on the part of the concerned counsel of the respondent DDA. Alongwith the application the respondent Delhi Development Authority has filed the supporting affidavits of the concerned counsel Shri V. K. Shali, Advocate and also that of the concerned Executive Engineer, namely, Shri S. K. Jain.

( 4 ) REPLY to the above mentioned application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner it is stated that the present application, filed on behalf of the respondent DDA, is not maintainable and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. On merits it is stated that it is wrong that despite due care and attention, taken in handling the file, the same was misplaced or got mixed up with some other files as alleged or otherwise. It is stated that the plea taken by the respondent Delhi Development Authority in the present application is frivolous and thus requires no favourable consideration by this Court. It has been prayed that the present application, for condonation of delay, be dismissed with costs.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On behalf of the applicant (respondent DDA) the matter was argued by Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate whereas on behalf of the non- applicant (petitioner) arguments were advanced by Shri Manmohan, Advocate. During the course of arguments, the main thrust of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent DDA was that the delay on the part of the respondent Delhi De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document