Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs M/S Ferozepur Rice & General Mills And ... on 6 November, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 3849 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: November 06, 2012
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
M/s Ferozepur Rice & General Mills and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Jony Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
A.N. Jindal, J
CM No. 16675-CII of 2010
For the reasons as mentioned in the application, delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.
CM is allowed.
FAO No. 3849 of 2010 (O&M)
Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 7.8.2009 passed
by the District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the objection petition filed by
the appellants- petitioners.
The learned District Judge, Ferozepur, before whom the award
dated 8.4.1999 was challenged by way of filing the objection petition under
Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein referred as,
'the Act of 1996'), observed that since the said award was challenged before
him on 7.6.2007, therefore, in view of the specific provisions of Section 34
(3) of the Act, the objection could not be maintained and the Limitation Act,
1963 does not apply to the arbitration proceedings. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has urged that though the award was passed on 8.4.1999, and the
Additional District Judge, Chandigarh passed order on 17.8.2005, whereby
the original objection petition was returned to the counsel for the petitioners
and the same was sent to the Manager, PUNSUP, Chandigarh on 27.4.2007,
which was returned to the DM, PUNSUP, Ferozepur, on 17.5.2007. Even if
it may be considered that the provisions of Section 43 of the Act of 1996,
F.A.O. No. 3849 of 2010 -2-
***
makes the provisions of the Limitation Act is applicable to the arbitration proceedings in the light of the judgment delivered in case M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 897 (SC), wherein it was observed as under :-
"14. We may notice that in similar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court in State of Goa v. Western Builders, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475 : 2007 (4) RAJ 596 : 2006 (6) SCC 239 has taken a similar view. As observed earlier the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 14 of the Act is to give relief of a litigant who had approached the wrong forum. No canon of construction of a statute is more firmly established than this that the purpose of interpretation is to give effect to the intention underlying the statute. The interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act has to be liberal. The language of beneficial provision contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally so as to suppress the mischief and advance its object. Therefore, it is held that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award."
To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has urged that even then, the objection petition filed before the District Judge, Ferozepur was not within limitation if we count the appeal from 17.8.2005 to the filing of the objection petition before the District Judge, Ferozepur on 6.6.2007.
Arguments heard.
It is very much clear from the judgment delivered in case M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises's case (supra) that the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act were applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. There is no provisions in the Arbitration Act which excludes the applicability of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act to F.A.O. No. 3849 of 2010 -3- *** an application filed under Section 34 of the Act. The Apex Court while delivering the judgment in M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises's case (supra), placed reliance on the earlier judgments delivered in cases State of Goa vs. Western Builders, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh vs. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, 1975 (3) SCR 743 and Union of India v. Popular Constructions Co. 2002 (1) RCR (Civil) 124.
In view of the no bar to the applicability of Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act to the maintainability of the petition under Section 34 of the Act, observations made by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, cannot be maintained and it would have to be held that the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Act are applicable to the present case.
Now coming to the question of disability to lodge the objection petition before the District Judge, Ferozepur, the award was passed on 8.4.1999 and the objection was filed before the District Judge, Chandigarh within time i.e. on 26.7.1999. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, after a long trial without informing the petitioners at an early date about his jurisdiction to try the case, vide order dated 17.8.2005, ordered to return the objection petition for presenting the same before the appropriate court. The original objection petition was returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same was sent to the Manager, PUNSUP, Chandigarh on 27.4.2007 which was returned to DM, PUNSUP, Ferozepur on 17.5.2007. Thus, after completing the formalities the objection petition was preferred before the District Judge, Ferozepur on 6.6.2007. Thus, there appears to be no extra time which the petitioners took, which invited the delay in filing the objection petition before the appropriate court. Consequently, it has to be observed that the order passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur, suffers from grave illegality inasmuch as the District Judge has not appreciated the law of the land as laid down in M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises' case (supra), while not applying the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act to the present proceedings.
F.A.O. No. 3849 of 2010 -4-*** Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remitted back to the court of District Judge, Ferozepur for deciding the same afresh according to law.
November 06, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge