Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1736
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
U.K. Dhaon and R.P. Yadav, JJ.
Union of India
Versus
Radha Krishna Seth
FAFO 401 of 2005
Decided On : 14 September 2005
FAFO 401 Of 2005
DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA, Ravi Nath,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, based on the provisions and scheme of the 1996 Act.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation - Section 34, Section 5 - 26 of 1996 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It highlighted the interpretation of 'signed copy' and 'certified copy' and their relevance to the limitation period. The court also emphasized the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on the provisions and scheme of the 1996 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The objection was dismissed by the District Judge, Lucknow, on the grounds of being barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection under Section 34 was indeed barred by limitation and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable for condoning the delay. It also held that the appeal against the impugned order was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the interpretation of 'signed copy' and 'certified copy', and the maintainability of the appeal against the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, including Section 34 and Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on the provisions and scheme of the 1996 Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and no order as to costs was issued.
( 2 ) IT appears that pursuant to some arbitration agreement, the arbitrators were appointed, who gave their arbitral award on 05. 01. 2001. A certified copy of the said award was served on the appellants on 01. 02. 2001. An objection purporting to be under Section 34 of the Act along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed before the learned District Judge, lucknow on 09. 06. 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. Popular Construction Co. 2001 (45) ALR 531 (SC) : 2001 (3) Arb. LR 345 (SC), held that the proviso to Section 34 (3) excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the limitation Act and that only one months 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 threshold 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) require 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 synonyms 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
