9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jector filed objections (I.A. 1273/98) under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 7th August, 1995 which are being contested by filing reply by the petitioner-claimant. 2. Although award dated 7th August, 1995 has been challenged on diverse grounds but during the course of arguments Sh. M. Dutta for respondent pressed only the ground about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Act, 1963 would apply. While refuting the submission, it was contended by Sh. Dalip Singh for petitioner that as the said award was filed before the court by the arbitrator himself the said Article would not apply. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Champalal v. Mst. Samrathbai AIR 1960 SC 629; Chowdhury and Gulzar Singh v. Frick India Ltd. AIR 1979 Delhi 97; Moti Ram v. Mangal Singh IL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him at the instance of a party to the agreement. Both these decisions fully support the contention referred to above advanced on behalf of respondent that where award is filed in court by the arbitrator not suo motu but at the instance of a party to arbitration agreement said Article 119(a) would apply and the award if filed beyond 30 days period will be barred by limitation. In none of aforement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
