Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 575 (DEL)

PARTAP SINGH AND SONS v. UNION OF INDIA

1991-10-24

USHA MEHRA

body1991
Usha Mehra ( 1 ) M/s. Partap Singh and Sons entered into an agreement with the respondent through the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. , Division No V (DA) for the construction of Government Higher Secondary School for 720 students at Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. The said agreement contain an arbitration clause. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the petitioner herein approached the Chief Engineer, P. W. D. to appoint an Arbitrator in pursuance to the power vested in him under Clause 25 of the said agreement. The Chief Engineer on the request of the petitioner appointed Shri J. P. Singhal as the Sole Arbitrator with direction that since the amount of the claim/dispute is more than Rs, 50,000 the Arbitrator was to give reasoned award. Shri J. P. Singhal, subsequently resigned as the Arbitrator and thereafter the respondent No. 2 herein was appointed as the Arbitrator, The respondent No. 2 has given his award dated 20th November, 1990. The award was filed in the court on 15th January, 1991. ( 2 ) ON filing of the award on 15th January, 1991 notice was directed to be issued to the parties. Petitioner was served with the notice of the filing of the award on 2nd March, 1991 whereas the Respondent/uoi was served of the filing of the award on 7th March, 1991. By omission fresh notice of the filing of the award was again issued to the respondent and it was served on 17th May, 1991. Petitioner did not choose to file the objections. However, UOI filed the objections on 19th July, 1991. Mr. Poddar appearing for the petitioner contends that the objections filed by the Objector-UOl are on the face of it barred by time. First time the objectors were served of the filing of the award on 7th March, 1991. Counting the statutory period of 30 days from 7th March, 1991 the objections ought to have been filed by 6th April, 1991 and even for the sake of argument the period is to be counted from 17th May, 1991 when the respondent were served again with the filing of the award, still the objections are barred by time. The period of 30 days expired on 16th June, 1991. The court re-opened on 8th July, 1991. The period of 30 days expired on 16th June, 1991. The court re-opened on 8th July, 1991. The objections ought to have been filed on the opening day of the Court, otherwise, each day delay had to be explained but the objectors have not cared to explain the delay either from 6th April, 1991 or from 8th July, 1991. In the absence of even seeking condonation of delay, the present objections should not be entertained. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Sanjay Poddar for the petitioner since there is none for the U. O. I, in spite of service. I have also perused the provision of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act which provides that the court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the Award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award. In this case since the objections have not been filed within the statutory period of 30 days therefore this court is left with no alternative but to proceed with the pronouncement of the judgment. The objections being time barred cannot be considered on merits. I accordingly reject the application of the Objector and make the Award dated 20th November, 1990 made and published by respondent No. 2 Rule of the court except Claim No. 8. ( 4 ) EVEN otherwise, the perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator has given reasons as stipulated under Clause 25 of the agreement. This court is not sitting as the court of the Appeal on the judgment of the Arbitrator. The parties had chosen their own Judge whose decision in law and fact is final. Even otherwise, the Arbitrator is the final Judge. ( 5 ) SO far as Claim No. 8 is concerned, the arbitrator had no power to award the pendente lite future interest. Therefore, the Award so far as Claim No. 8 is concerned is set aside. The Award of interest has no bearing on other claims being independent will not vitiate the rest of the award. ( 6 ) IN view of my findings above, the Award made and published by the Arbitrator with modification is hereby made a Rule of the court with further directions that the petitioner will be entitled to interest from the date of the award till realisation @ 14% per annum.