2000 JTR(SC) 504
2000 AIR(SCW) 3934 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 393402 ; 2000 2 ArbLR 667 ; 2000 4 AWC 2807 ; 2002 1 CurLJ 462 ; 2000 8 JT 330 ; 2001 1 MLJ 31 ; 2000 3 RAJ 86 ; 2000 WLC 640 ; 2000 7 Supreme 69
2000(7) Supreme 69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Brothers -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15569 of 1999)
Decided on 6-3-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before the Court regarding making the arbitration award a rule of Court.
Act
Referred
:ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.30
LIMITATION ACT : S.5
(A) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 30) governs the filing of objections to arbitral awards, while the Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 5) provides for condonation of delay in approaching the court. In the present proceeding, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings for making an award a rule of the court was examined in the context of a challenge to the time taken to file objections under Section 30. The High Court and the trial court had to determine whether the delay was sufficiently excused in the interest of justice and whether the limitation provisions governed the exercise of judicial power in setting aside or refusing to set aside an award.
(B) Key legal principles include that sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to court proceedings regarding making an award a rule of the court. The interest of justice is a relevant consideration in excusing delay, and appellate courts set aside orders if the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions are not correctly applied by the lower courts.
Facts of the case:
An appeal filed by a party challenged orders of the High Court and the trial Court regarding objections filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant was alleged to have delayed filing objections by 2 months and 22 days, and the trial court had held Section 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable. The learned Addl. Solicitor General and the respondent-furnished arguments were considered before the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Act and that such delay was condoned in the interest of justice. It also found that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly held inapplicable to the proceedings before the court regarding making the award a rule of the court. Consequently, the impugned orders of both the High Court and the trial Court were set aside.
Issues:
Whether the delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was sufficiently condoned. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to court proceedings regarding making an award a rule of the court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the delay was condoned due to sufficient cause and in the interest of justice, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable; hence, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the objections on merits within a specified period.
Result:
The appeal is allowed with a special cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within four weeks, and the deposit of Rs. 24,37,868/- is to be reinvested in a nationalized bank for six months pending the remanded proceedings.
(A) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 30) governs the filing of objections to arbitral awards, while the Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 5) provides for condonation of delay in approaching the court. In the present proceeding, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings for making an award a rule of the court was examined in the context of a challenge to the time taken to file objections under Section 30. The High Court and the trial court had to determine whether the delay was sufficiently excused in the interest of justice and whether the limitation provisions governed the exercise of judicial power in setting aside or refusing to set aside an award.
(B) Key legal principles include that sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to court proceedings regarding making an award a rule of the court. The interest of justice is a relevant consideration in excusing delay, and appellate courts set aside orders if the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions are not correctly applied by the lower courts.
Facts of the case:
An appeal filed by a party challenged orders of the High Court and the trial Court regarding objections filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant was alleged to have delayed filing objections by 2 months and 22 days, and the trial court had held Section 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable. The learned Addl. Solicitor General and the respondent-furnished arguments were considered before the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Act and that such delay was condoned in the interest of justice. It also found that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly held inapplicable to the proceedings before the court regarding making the award a rule of the court. Consequently, the impugned orders of both the High Court and the trial Court were set aside.
Issues:
Whether the delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was sufficiently condoned. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to court proceedings regarding making an award a rule of the court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the delay was condoned due to sufficient cause and in the interest of justice, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable; hence, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the objections on merits within a specified period.
Result:
The appeal is allowed with a special cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within four weeks, and the deposit of Rs. 24,37,868/- is to be reinvested in a nationalized bank for six months pending the remanded proceedings.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appellant and Shri Hanuman Prasad who is present in person on behalf of respondent-firm.
3. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of the case it could not have been said that there was no sufficient cause for the appellant to get the delay of 2 months 22 days in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 condoned in the interest of justice. We also find that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly held inapplicable to the proceedings before Court regarding making the award a rule of the Court. Consequently, on these grounds, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as of the trial Court are set aside. The trial Court is directed to take up objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on record and to decide the same in accordance with law on merits within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the order at its end. We make it clear that we make no observation on the merits of the objections under Section 30 of the Act which have to be decided by the trial Court on its own. As the delay of 2 months 22 days is condoned we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of special cost to the respondent within four weeks from today. In the meantime, Rs. 24,37,868/- lying deposited in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur shall be invested by learned District Judge in any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of six months awaiting decision in the remanded proceedings and the said deposit can be renewed for further suitable period if so required. In view of the present order, earlier order dated 5.11.1999 directing the appellant to keep a net balance of Rs. 7 lacs in Bank Account No. D-45 with State Bank of India at NCRB Branch, Jaipur does not survive. The appeal is allowed accordingly with Rs. 5,000/- special cost to be paid to the respondent.
Appeal allowed.
**************