JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

The appellant assails order dated 4.1.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing objections filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act') against ex parte award dated 3.10.2014 (Annexure A-1).

2. In nutshell, the dispute amongst the parties arose from a loan which the appellant had raised for purchasing a vehicle. Since, the appellant, as per the respondent was found to be defaulter, the arbitration proceedings were invoked wherein the appellant was proceeded against ex parte and an ex parte award dated 3.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) was passed. The appellant upon coming to know about the said ex parte award, filed objections (Annexure A-6) under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge on 15.1.2015 which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.1.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Additional District Judge fell in error in holding that the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act had been filed beyond the period of limitation of 90 days whereas the same, as a matter of fact had been filed within 90 days from the date of award in question had been communicated to the appellant which was received by him on 18.10.2014.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the award in question, in any case deserves to be set aside as the same has been passed on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits and that such practice had been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.V. Matha v. Lal Chand Meghraj and others, (2007) 14 SCC 722. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court as well in FAO-2750-2015, FAO-2405-2021 and FAO-2898-2021.

5. Although, the respondent had been duly served and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 on 17.7.2019, but he has not caused appearance thereafter. As such, it is apparent that he is not interested in contesting this appeal.

6. The award in question admittedly was passed on 3.10.2014. As per the case of the appellant, the award in question had been sent at his native place i.e. village Nathal, Post Office, Goyala, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereas the appellant at that point of time was serving in Army School at Dagshai. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to copy of envelop (Annexure A-5). While the envelop is addressed to the appellant by mentioning his address of Village Nathal, P.O. Chandi, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan (HP), but there are remarks on the left side recorded that the addressee resides at Dagshai Army School. The said report is dated 15.10.2014. The said envelop also shows that the same was received at the Post Office, Dagshai on 18.10.2014, as would be evident from seal impression affixed therein. The Court of learned Additional District Judge while holding that the objections had been filed beyond limitation had made the following observations:

"7. The objector/applicant has preferred the objections under section 34 of the Act against the Award dated 3.10.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 the sole Arbitrator. The applicant has preferred the objections before this court on 15.1.2015. Admittedly, the objections have not been preferred within time as envisaged in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been averred by the applicant that the copy of award was received by the applicant on 18.10.2014, hence the delay, if any