Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The appellant is aggrieved against the dismissal of his objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Addl. District Judge, Sonepat on the ground that there was a delay in filing the same.

2. In brief, the facts are that the appellant was allotted security contract at BSNL Sonepat, however, on account of a dispute the matter was referred to an Arbitrator in terms of the contract. The Arbitrator gave his award on 15. 03.2012 whereby the claim was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said dismissal of the claim petition, the appellant herein preferred 1 of 8 FAO- 4152-2013 (O&M) -2- objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were dismissed by the Additional District Judge Sonepat on the ground that the same had not been filed within the period of limitation. Aggrieved of the same, the instant appeal has been filed.

7. In the instant case, the appellant herein had filed the objections and the application seeking condonation of delay within the extended period of 30 days from the expiry of three months with a reasonable explanation given. The application for the delay in filing within three months was explained, that the appellant on 02.05.2012 had handed over the papers to his lawyer to objections to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator in the High Court at Chandigarh,as it was the High Court who had appointed the Arbitrator and therefore the High Court would also have the power to set aside the same. It was only on 31.05.2012 the counsel at Chandigarh informed him to file the case at Sonepat or Rewari and the file was handed over to the counsel at Rewari to file the same but after a lot of consultation with the advocates, it was opined that the District Court at Sonepat has the jurisdiction over the subject matter. The appellant took the file from counsel

6 of 8 FAO- 4152-2013 (O&M) -7- in District Court, Rewari on 12.06.2012. Thereafter, the appellant started searching for a counsel to file his petition and handed over the case file to the counsel to file his case at District Court, Sonepat on 14.06.2012. Therefore, the statutory period of limitation expired during summer vacations and the counsel for the appellant came to file the case on first day of opening of the District Court after summer vacations. The term 'sufficient cause' has been a subject matter of consideration in several judgments of the Supreme Court and one of them being that the litigant should not be put to hardship on account of his counsel. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that 'sufficient cause' has been given as to why the objections could not be filed within a specified time as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, since these were filed within the extended period of 30 days as per the proviso to section 34(3), therefore, the order dated 01.06.2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Addl. District Judge, Sonepat to give the decision afresh on merits expeditiously.

9. Parties are directed to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Sonepat on 19.11.2019.

10. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.





                                              (JAISHREE THAKUR)
October 15, 2019                                      JUDGE
seema


             Whether speaking/reasoned                           Yes
             Whether reportable                                  Yes/No




                               8 of 8