*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

OMP 232/2005

D.M. JAWAHAR MERICAN

…… Petitioner

Through : Mr. Anil Kher, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate

versus

ENGINEER INDIA LTD.

..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Ashok Mathur with Mr. Gaurav

Srivastava

CORAM:

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Oral)

1. In this proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), the petitioner challenges the

validity of the award of a sole arbitrator, made on 18.01.2005. The

respondent, at the threshold objects to maintainability of the proceedings on

the ground that the petition under Section 34 of the Act, was filed beyond

2008:DHC:2457

time prescribed by law.

2. To better appreciate the controversy the following essential facts are

narrated. The award was announced on 18^th January, 2005. The arbitrator at

that stage communicated copies of the award to the parties. He however,

recorded that the original award was not being communicated since it had to

bear the prescribed stamp duty. The claimant (i.e. the petitioner here) was

directed to ascertain the required amount and send the stamp papers to

enable the arbitrator to have the award imprinted on it. On 12.02.2005, the

petitioner moved the arbitrator for clarification, correction and interpretation

of the award under Section 33 (1) of the Act. Among several contentions, it

was urged that the arbitrator, in his award committed an error in over-

looking that the claim, as made originally, was for US Dollars 500,000 and

that in the award he erroneously assumed the claim to be MR 211,250. The

arbitrator by his order dated 20^th February, 2005 rejected this application. It

is not in dispute that the award was eventually stamped and sent on

13.03.2005. The petitioner claims that the date on which he received the

award was 13.04.2005. The present petition under Section 34 (3) of the Act,

was filed on 04.07.2005.

3. Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent contends that

the time for filing objections to the award under Section 34 (3) is fixed and

judgments of the Supreme Court have now established conclusively that

objections have to be filed within the time prescribed, failing which resources

2008:DHC:2457

to the Limitation Act is excluded. He relied upon text of Section 34 (3) of the

Act and contended that enforceability of the award which is linked with the

period within which the petition under Section 34 (3) of the Act, has to be

preferred, cannot be confused with the executability of an award. He relied

upon the judgment reported as Anusuya Devi & Another Vs. M.Nanik Reddy

& Others, (2003) 8 SCC 565, where it was held that the question as to

whether the award is required to be stamped or registered is relevant only

when the parties would file the award for its enforcement under Section 36

of the Act. On the strength of this authority, it was contended that the

parties can object to admissibility of such a decree arising out of a award on

account of non-registration and non-stamping at that stage. However, it

was, contended that the sequitor is that the petition under Section 34 of the

Act has to be preferred within the period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of

the Act i.e. ninety days from date of receipt of the arbitral award, which in

this case was 18.01.2005.

4. Learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme

Court reported as Dr. Chiranji Lal (D) By L.R.s., Appellant Vs. Hari Das (D) by

L.Rs. AIR 2005 SC 2564, for the proposition that the period of limitation starts

or commences from the date when the decree (i