TMI Blog1977 (12) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Campus at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The contract provided for arbitration for settling any dispute that may arise between the parties. A dispute arose and the matter was referred to respondents 2 and 3 who gave an award on 23rd July, 1976. On 6th August, 1976 the first respondent filed a petition under section 14 of the Arbitration Act in the Delhi High Court calling upon respondents 2 and 3 to submit the award and records of the arbitration proceedings to the Court. On 27th August, 1976 the arbitrators filed the award in the court. The appellant was served with a notice on 31st August, 1976 calling upon it to submit the objection for setting aside the award within one month from the date of the service of the notice. The objection for setting aside the ' award was filed in the High Court on 29th September, 1976 within the period of limitation. But as the objection petition was defective, in that the necessary stamps were not affixed and the date of tiff verification of the petition was not entered, the memorandum of objection was returned on 12th October, 1976 for rectifying the defects. When the matter was taken up by the Deputy Registrar on 25th October, 1976, Shri D. P. Mukher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that Shri B. Singh will be paid as per schedule of fees in the first week of October, 1976 subject to certain adjustments. On 22nd September, 1976 Shri B. Singh sent his bill for drafting, filing and conducting objections. The bill contained two items-One for professional fees for drafting the objections as per column, 3(d) of the schedule amounting to ₹ 3000/ and the second item for professional fees for filing and conducting the objections in the High Court of Delhi as per column 4(a) of the schedule of fees amounting to ₹ 15,000/-. By another letter dated 29th September, 1976 Shri B. Singh stated that the objections have already been filed. Again on 13th October, 1976 Shri B. Singh wrote to the appellant in which he referred to his engagement for drafting objections and filing and conducting the same in the High Court and the fees demanded by him. He further stated that the objections filed by him have been returned 'and the same must be refiled after removing the objections otherwise the award will, be. made a rule of the Court and thereby a decree for ₹ 3,04,510.33 will be passed against the-appellant. Shri B. Singh required papers along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled only after receiving full payment, still keeping in view the entire circumstances, the objections were filed on 29th September, 1976. In these circumstances, the appellant prayed for condonation of delay in filing the objections and. for extension of time to enable him to file the objections. The High Court while observing that Shri B. Singh may have acted without care or attention of the interest of his client or may have behaved recklessly, but nevertheless he was negligent. The High Court was not convinced that the appellant was unable to take any steps for filing objections for 'setting aside the 'award before 21st January, 1977. The High Court observed that although Shri Mukherjee had also put in appearance on behalf of ISI before the Deputy Registrar on 25th October, 1976 and sought time for filing objections for setting aside the award, no objections were, filed till 1st January, 1977. It, however, observed that the appellant would have got inspection of the record for the purposes of drafting and filing objections for setting aside the award. The High Court proceeded to observe that as material for drafting objections for setting aside the award was already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e but no 'stamps were fixed to the objections and the date of verification was not entered. This intimation was given by Shri Singh on 13th October, 1976 a day after the objections were returned by the office. Shri B. Singh wrote to the appellant informing him of the return, the necessity for removing the objections and refiling the objections and threatening that it the fees were not paid the matter would be held up. By the letter dated 21st October, 1976 Shri Singh demanded ₹ 15,000/-. At the earliest opportunity, that is when the matter came up before the Deputy Registrar the 'appellant prayed for time for filing objections stating that he had decided to change his advocate. On 29th October, 1976 Shri B. Singh again wrote stating that though it had been repeatedly made clear that objection would be filed only after receiving full payments, he had filed objections in time on 29th September 1976. The learned Judge found that though the material for drafting objections for setting the award was available either in the records of the court, or in the record of the appellant there is no explanation for not filing objections till 21st January, 1977. The High court ignore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any stage. The defect in not affixing the date of the verification is not a material one to be taken serious note of. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that objections were not filed within time or that because they were not properly stamped the objections could not be taken as having been filed at all. Therefore, in our views there had not been any delay 'in preferring the objections. The delay, if any, was in complying with the directions of the Registrar to rectify the defect and refiling the objections. The delay, as we have pointed out earlier, is not due to any want of care on the part of the appellant but due to circumstances beyond its control. The High Court was in error in holding that there was any delay in filing the objections for setting aside the award. The time prescribed by the Limitation Act for filing of the objections is one month from the date of the service of the notice. It is common ground that the objections were filed within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act though defectively. The delay, if any, was in representation of the objection petition after rectifying the defects. 5 of the limitation Act provides for extension of the prescrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
