( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 37 (l) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the objector, against whom an award by the Arbitral Tribunal has been passed.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that the parties entered into a registered lease agreement in respect of property No. 7/110-A sarup Nagar, Kanpur. The said lease agreement is dated 15th February, 1999. It also contains an arbitration clause. The respondent is admittedly the lessor and the present appellant is the lessee of the aforesaid property. The dispute having arisen between the parties it was referred to Arbitral Tribunal of Shri Manish Agrawal. The Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 4th August, 2000 ordered that the present appellant shall deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question i. e. 7/110-A to the present respondent and shall also pay the over due rent from January, 2000 up to 3rd August, 2000 amounting to Rs. 56. 000/- along with the damages at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per day w. e. f. 1st September, 2000 till the actual date of delivery of the vacant possession of the accommodation in question. It also directs payment of electricity dues amounting to Rs. 2. 85 lacs approximately and interest at the rate of 15% per annum etc.

( 3 ) THE appellant filed objections u/s. 34 of the Act against the aforesaid award on 1st December, 2000 along with an application for condonation of delay in its filing. The delay was condoned by order dated 19th january, 2001 however, the objections preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed.

( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri Shashi nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri manu Khare, learned Advocate raised three points in support of the appeal. Firstly the finding of the Court below in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the act is incorrect secondly the award is a waste paper inasmuch as it has not been written on stamp paper and no stamp duty has been paid by the respondent on the aforesaid award, thirdly after the award dated 4th August, 2000, the party entered into a fresh agreement on 2nd September, 2000. The fresh agreement declared that the aforesaid award is null and void and shall not be put into execution and relations of the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions as contained therein, therefore, the award is not executable and liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) SRI S. N. Verma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the Court below found that the delay in filing objections could not be condoned, the Court proceeded to decide the objections preferred by the appellants on merits and as such the question that the objections were barred by limitation is only of academic interest. He submitted that the objections to an Arbitral award can be raised only on the ground enumerated in Section 34 (2) of the Act. None of the objections raised by the appellant falls in the aforesaid category and, therefore, the objections are liable to be rejected. The genuineness and correctness of the subsequent alleged agreement dated 2nd September, 2000 was also disputed on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that no such agreement was entered into by the parties and the alleged agreement dated 2nd September, 2000 is forged and fabricated document and cannot be relied upon at all.

( 6 ) TAKING the first point first, it is true that the Court below has come to the conclusion in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment that there are no sufficient reasons to condone the delay under proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34 of the Act. It is also true that the Court below by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document