Calcutta High Court
Uma Sen & Anothers vs Hdfc Bank Limited on 14 January, 2015
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
ORDER SHEET
A.P. No. 1531 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
UMA SEN & ANOTHERS.
Versus
HDFC BANK LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER
Date: 14th January, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. Saumabho Ghose, Adv.
... for the petitioners
Mr. S.S. Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. A. Saha, Adv.
... for the respondent
The Court: This is an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners challenge an award passed by an Arbitrator on 19th July, 2011. This application appears to have been filed on 24th September, 2014.
From the averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition, it appears that the petitioners have stated therein that they came to learn of the award only upon receiving the notice of the Execution Application, being EC No. 379 of 2014, which was moved before this Court on 2nd September, 2014. It further appears that the petitioners have stated that till date they have not received a signed copy of the award passed by the leaned Arbitrator.
At the time of hearing of the matter, the learned advocate representing the respondent HDFC Bank Limited submits that the statements made by the petitioners in paragraphs 9 and 10 are not correct. In this regard, he hands up a copy of a communication received by his advocate-on-record from the Arbitrator, 2 wherefrom it appears that the Arbitrator has enclosed photocopies of the postal acknowledgement due cards which show that Uma Sen, being one of the petitioners, having received a copy of the award as far back as on 30th July, 2011. Let the same be kept on record.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, however, submits that the signature of Uma Sen appearing in the postal acknowledgment due card is a forged signature.
This Court is not impressed by the stand taken by the petitioners. Neither the respondent nor the Arbitrator had any role to play in the matter of service, since it was the postal authorities who were entrusted in communicating the award dated 19th July, 2011. There is no plausible reason as to why the Indian Postal authorities would obtain a forged signature of an addressee who was sought to be served a copy of the award by the Arbitrator. The postal acknowledgment card clearly demonstrates that one of the petitioners, namely, Uma Sen received the award on 30th July, 2011, at the address mentioned in the card.
In such circumstances as stated above, this application, which has been filed on 24th September, 2014, is clearly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.) sg2