Back
2007 Supreme(Guj) 619
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.A.PUJ
STATE OF GUAJRAT THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Appellant
Versus
SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION CO.(BARODA) PVT.LTD. - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 4542 Of 2006
Decided On : 10/05/2007
Headnote:Point in Issue :
Whether detail objections to the award after filing the original objections can be filed after the period of limitation prescribed?
Head Note :
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Section 34(3) - Limitation period - Arbitration award - Detailed objections to award filed after the period of limitation - Sustainability - Finding of - Petitioner aggrieved and dissatisfied with award passed by the sole Arbitrator preferred civil application to District Court with in the prescribed time limit - At the time of filing original objections petitioner reserved the right for filing further detailed objection in failure which petitioner filed on 18.10.2003-The respondent objected to filing of detailed objection after prescribed time period - The District Court by its impugned order dated 06.10.2005 erroneously rejected the further detailed objections on ground of limitation - The Additional District Judge did not properly dealt with the provision contained in Section 34(3) of the Act - These provisions are applicable only to filing of the original objections against the award - At that point of time petitioner filed original objections had sought the permission to raised further objections later to which neither the Court refused nor respondent made any objection since the leave was prayed by petitioner to file further objection and it was neither objected nor rejected respondent, can not raise objection in this regard subsequently - Considering the overall view of the matter and further considering the well recognised principle of law equity and Justice Court set aside impugned order of Additional District Court and directed to consider further objection raised by petitioner and decide the same with other objections raised in original application.
Held :
The provisions contained in Section 34(3) of the Act have not been properly dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge. These provisions are applicable only to filing of the original objections against the award. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner has filed the objections in time i.e. within a period of 3 months. While filing the original objections, the petitioner has prayed for leave to file further objections. At that point of time, the respondent has not raised any objection nor the Court has refused to grant such leave. When further objections were filed by the petitioner vide Exhibit 16, the Respondent No. 1 filed application Exhibit 17 raising preliminary objection. Since the leave was prayed for by the petitioner to file further objection and it was neither objected nor expressly rejected, the respondents cannot raise such objection subsequently. [Para 12]
Law Laid Down :
Court has to consider matter on basis of recognised principles of law, equity and justice.
Case Law Analysis :
Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co., 2001 (3) RAJ 163 (SC) [Para 11];; Vastu Invest & Holdings Private Limited vs. Gujarat Lease Financing Limited, 2001 (4) RAJ 215 (Bom) [Para 11];; Esteem Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.H. Parekh & Anr., 2002 (1) RAJ 551 (Bom) [Para 11].-Relied on
Conclusion :
Since the leave was prayed for by the petitioner to file further objections and it was neither objected nor expressly rejected the respondents cannot raised objection with regard limitation to the filing of further objection subsequently.
Cases Referred :
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs J.A. Infra Structure (P) Ltd., 2006 (8) SCC 21;; Western Builders, 2006 (6) SCC 239.
Decided in Favour of :
Appellant
Petition Allowed
( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the State of Gujarat invited the tenders pertaining to the work of providing and connecting the Hume Steel Pipes. An agreement between the parties was entered into on 14. 7. 1992. The work order was issued to the present respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was required to complete the work within the prescribed time period. Because of the failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 90% work was completed and 10% work was to be completed in February, 1995. The respondent No. 1 carried out work of Rs. 99,98,054/- and the tender cost was fixed at Rs. 1,01,53,000/ -. Payment thereof had already been made by the State Government through various running account bills. The respondent No. 1 submitted the final bill in the year 1995 wherein they have claimed an amount of Rs. 51,000/- as dues alongwith nine points, towards various dues on 22. 1. 1995. The total final bill as per say of the respondent came to Rs. 9. 94 lacs. The respondent No. 1 sent reminders for Rs. 9. 94 lacs. On 28. 9. 1996 the respondent No. 1 gave notice for Rs. 1 crore approximately without giving any details towards those claims and without producing any evidence to support the claim. The said claim was made after the expiry period of one and half years of submitting the final bill. The respondent No. 1 preferred an arbitration proceeding and Mr. R. O. Parikh was appointed as sole Arbitrator who passed an award on 16. 5. 2002 in favour of the respondent No. 1.
( 3 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the sole Arbitrator on 16. 5. 2002, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Application (Arbitration) No. 148 of 2002 before the District Court, Vadodara. The said application was preferred within the prescribed time limit as per the provision contained in Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. At the time of filing of the objections, the petitioner reserved right for filing detailed objections in future. The respondent No. 1 has not filed his reply. On 18. 10. 2003, the petitioner filed further detailed objections for clarifying certain details before the District Court, Vadodara at Ex. 16.
( 4 ) ON 15. 11. 2003 the respondent No. 1 filed preliminary objection at Ex. 17 whereby the respondent No. 1 had taken objection that the further objection cannot be filed as the time limit for filing objections under Section 34 (3) of the Act has already been over. The learned District Judge, Vadodara has allowed the said application vide his order dated 6. 10. 2005 and held that the further objections filed by the petitioner vide Ex. 16 are not within the prescribed period of time.
( 5 ) IT is this order of learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara which is under challenge in the present petition.
( 6 ) THIS Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 13. 3. 2006 and notice as to interim relief was also issued on the same date. On 26. 4. 2006 the Court has passed an order directing the registry to fix the matter for final hearing in the first week of July, 2006 and during the pendency of the petition, further proceeding in connection with Civil Misc. Application No. 148 of 2002 pending before the District Court was ordered to be stayed.
( 7 ) MR. Niraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara below an Application Ex. 17 is absolutely unjust, illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has misread and misconstrued the provisions
