Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1733
[2006(2) ADJ 432 (All)(LB)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : U.K. DHAON AND R.P. YADAV, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Appellants
Versus
RADHA KRISHNA SETH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
(F.A.F.O. No. 401 of 2005,
decided on 14th September, 2005)
Counsel :
Deepak Srivastava for the Appellants; Ravi Nath for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 37, 34 and 31—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Rejection of application under Section 5 of Act of 1963 by D.J. (i.e., Condonation of delay), as not maintainable, and dismissing objection under Section 34 of Act of 1996, as barred by limitation—Furnishing of a certified copy by Arbitrator, was sufficient compliance of requirement of law—And appellants ought to have filed an objection under Section 34 of Act of 1996 within three months from date when said certified copy of award was served and received by appellant, and in any event, within a month further by seeking condonation of delay under Proviso to Section 34(3) of Act of 1996—But no objection could be filed thereafter, i.e., after expiry of four month's period—Therefore, Section 5 of Limitation Act, was not applicable, for condoning delay, in filing objection under Section 34 of Act of 1996—And, hence, delay could not be condoned under Section 5—Appellants cannot be permitted to assail it, on ground that it was within time, as signed copy was not given to him—"Certified Copy” was “Signed Copy”, within meaning of law—Rejection of application under Section 5, for condonation of delay can be challenged only in revision—Therefore, no appeal lies, against impugned order—Hence, appeal liable to be dismissed, as non-maintainable.
[Paras 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21]
(B) Words and phrases—Words “Signed Copy”, “Certified Copy”, “Copy”, “Signature” and “Sign”, in context of judgment and order—Meaning and interpretation of. [Paras 7 to 12]
Hon’ble R.P. Yadav, J.—The order impugned in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act No. 26 of 1996 (hereinafter called the Act) is dated 1.4.2005 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as not maintainable and dismissing the objection under Section 34 of the Act as barred by limitation.
2. It appears that pursuant to some arbitration agreement, the arbitrators were appointed, who gave their arbitral award on 5.1.2001. A certified copy of the said award was served on the appellants on 1.2.2001. An objection purporting to be under Section 34 of the Act alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed before the learned District Judge, Lucknow on 9.6.2003. As such, there was delay of 2 years, 4 months and 8 days. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and pleaded that objection under Section 34 of the Act was barred by limitation provided under the law, which was three months only. The learned District Judge, Lucknow relying on the case of Union of India v. M/s Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 held that the proviso to Section 34 (3) excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that only one month’s delay and no more could be condoned under the proviso added to Section 34 (3) of the Act. He, therefore, dismissed the application and objection under Section 34 of the Act.
3. Aggrieved, the appellants have come up with this appeal.
4. At the very thresh-hold an objection was raised by Shri Ravi Nath, the learned counsel for respondents that the appeal is not maintainable against the impugned order, which lies only against the final order passed on an objection under Section 34 of the Act.
5. Shri Deepak Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that the provisions of Section 31 (5) required that after the arbitral award is made a signed copy thereof shall be given to each party and since no signed copy was supplied till this date and it was only a certified copy, which was given to him, the limitation did not start to run and his objection under Section 34 of the Act is not barred by limitation and the same was maintainable, therefore, an order throwing his objection away on false and untenable ground can be challenged in appeal only.
6. Before we proceed to decide the maintainability of appeal, the important question which hinges for immediate attention is as to what is the actual meaning of the words “signed copy.” No material was produced by the parties Counsel explaining or defining the said words. What was the legislative intention while using the words “signed copy”? Before we find out the meaning of the words “signed copy”, let us first understand the meaning of the word “copy”. On understanding the correct meaning of word “copy” it would be easy to understand the true import of “signed copy”.
7. In Websters Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus (2002 Edition) “copy” when used as a noun means reproduction, a transcript, imitation, a manuscript for printing, newspapers text and when used as a verb means to make a copy, to reproduce, to imitate, to create duplicate of a file (computer) word. In the Thesaurus its synonymous are counter-script, duplicate, facsimile, replica, reproduction transcript. “Sign” means indicate, signify, countersign, endorse, subscribe.
8. In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition)-9A-"copy” has been defined to mean in “general” as a writing like another writing, a true transcript of an original, a reproduction of the original work. In common and legal acceptation, a copy is not an original. The noun copy ordinarily and as used in copyright cases signifies a tangible object that is reproduction of the original work.
9. In Volume 39 of Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, the word “sign” as a verb is said to have several shades of meaning, and he
