Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 685
High Court Of Delhi
NARAIN DASS R.ISRANI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 320 of 1991
Decided On : 12/12/1991
M.C.Garg, Naresh Markanda
Headnote:LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - Section 5 — Arbitrator filed award — Notice of filing of award served on respondent — objections not Filed — Later respondent filed objections with application for condensation of delay — Petitioner contested objections — barred by time — chronological graph of movement of file shows the care too hoot attitude of respondent — each delay not explained — condensation of delay cannot be claimed as of right — Office procedure no ground to condone delay — Routing of file from one office to another is not sufficient cause — Clear case of negligence and indifference on the part of respondent — No sufficient cause shown — Delay not condoned — No error on apparent on face of award except grant of future interest of 14% per annum — Arbitrator has no power to grant future interest — Award modified to that extent —
Held:
When there is a delay, each delay has to be explained. After 14 March, 1991, the respondent has not been able to explain the delay. On the contrary, the respondent Union of India has taken it as if the moving of an application for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay will be condoned as of right. condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be claimed as of right. The applicant has to show sufficient cause and make out a good case for seeking the delay to be condoned. If the courts were to accept the mere procedure of working in Government offices as sufficient cause for the delay, then the delay would have to be condoned, in almost every case and the period of limitation prescribed for filling of the objections or for that matter suits or appeal would become misnomer. The intention of the legislature is not to discriminate between a common man and the Union of India for purposes of furnishing sufficient causes for dondonation of delay. For the purposes of moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act add for explaining the delay UOI cannot take advantage of its own wrongs. Office procedure is no ground to condone the delay. To my mind the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be exercised in this case because from the chronological dates mentioned above, it is clear that the respondent/official of the respondent had been taking it very lightly in their own stride least mindful of the fact that the period of filing objections had expired. This is a clear case of negligence and indifference on the part of the respondent.
Routing of file from one office to another is not sufficient cause. Hence in the absence of sufficient cause having been shown, I find no merits in this application.
Even otherwise I have perused the award and find no error apparent of the face of the award except where the arbitrator has granted future interest at the rate of 1% per annum from the date of the award till realisation. The arbitrator has no power to grant the future interest. thereforee, the award against this claim is set aside.
( 1 ) THE arbitrator, Shri N. H. Chandwani, respondent No. 2 filed his award and the proceedings. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to MIS. Narain Doss R. Israni, the petitioner as well as to the Union of India, respondent No. 1. Union of India was served with the notice of the filing of the award on 15th February, 1991. The case was taken up by the Deputy Registrar on, 19th March, 1991 but no objections on behalf of the Union of India were filed. So far as the petitioner was concerned, they wanted the award to be made a rule of the Court. Later on, On 16th April, 1991, the Union of India filed the objections along with an application under Section 5 ,of the Limitation Act. It is this application, which has come up for consideration before this Court. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner, who has contested the same on the ground, that the objections now sought to be filed are barred by time. The following issue was framed to determine this application:
"whether there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the objections?"
( 2 ) IT was decided by the parties that they were not to lead any evidence but would address the arguments only. I have heard Mr. Naresh Markenday, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. C. Garg. counsel for Union of India. Admittedly, the period for filing the objection expired on or before 14th March, 1991 because the Union of India in this case was served on 15th February, 1991 and the objections could have been filed within the statutory period of thirty days. It is also an admitted fact on record that the objections have been filed along with the condonation application on 16th April, 1991. Reason given for condonation is the procedural delay in working of the Government office. According to respondent, the award dated 10th. December, 1990, was received in their office on 20th December, 1990. Is was not acceptable to the Executive Engineer who, therefore, forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer with his comments on 25th January, 1991. After considering the Executive Engineer s observations and suggestions, the Superintending Engineer opined that the same be challenged and forwarded his comments for approval to the Chief Engineer on 18th February, 1991. In the meanwhile, the Department approached the Senior Counsel of the C. P. W. D. for his opinion on the award and the said opinion was received on 13th March, 1991. Again, the Ministry of Urban Development was approached for giving permission to challenge the award 15th March, 1991 and the Ministry communicated the approval to the Chief Engineer of 27th March, 1991. The Chief Engineer in turn informed the Executive Engineer on 1st April, 1991. The Executive Engineer received the approval on 9th April, 1991 and there after, the objections were filed. This in nutshell is the reason for seeking the condonation of delay, in fact in this application no reason has been assigned why the officers did not take the file personally particularly when all the offices of the C. P. W. D. are situated in the same building. The dronological graph of the movement of the file shows the "care too hoot" attitude of the respondent. Award was received in the office of the Executive Engineer of 20th December, 1991. He took more than a month to decide to challenge the award. Opinion of the panel lawyer was obtained on 29th January, 1991. The Superintending Engineer took almost 25 days to forward the file to Chief Engineer The Superintending Engineer, according to respondent own showing recommended for challenging the award and sought the approval of the Chief Engineer on 18th February, 1991 i. e. after the notice of the filling of the award was served on the respondent. Still neither the Executive Engineer any other official of the Department bothered to ensure that the objections be filed within 30 days. After having obtained the opinion from the panel lawyer, why the opinion of a Senior Counsel was not obtaine
