Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The above facts and arguments of counsel for the respondents indicate that appellants were aware about the proceedings before the arbitrator and outcome of the proceedings. The arbitration award was 6 of 9 nothing more than legal colour to oral settlement consented by all the parties and there was constructive knowledge to the appellants and they have acted upon on the basis of said knowledge. There are various acts regarding properties which took place even prior to pronouncement of award like Mr. Pardeep Jain and Mr. Kuldeep Jain received rent w.e.f. 01.06.2002 and relinquishment deed was executed on 08.07.2002 whereas award is dated 26.07.2002.

8. This court is not oblivious of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases that delay beyond 30 days from the normal period of limitation i.e. 3 months cannot be condoned by Court under Section 34(3) of the Act. Therefore, if it is held that constructive knowledge is sufficient and amounts to compliance of Section 31, the petition filed by appellant would be barred by limitation. However, it is settled law that if an act is required to be done in a particular manner and it affects rights and liabilities of parties, it cannot be done in any other manner. Section 31 (5) of the Act candidly requires that signed copy of award should be delivered. Delivery may take place by hand or by post, however, actual delivery of signed copy is indispensable. In the present case, I do not find either any evidence or any concrete argument of the respondent that signed copy of award was duly delivered upon the appellants before 8.5.2003. The appellants having acted upon the award is not sufficient because parties to award acted even prior to date of award so it cannot be assumed that signed copy of award was delivered prior to 8.5.2003. The parties could be present at the time of final arguments still compliance of section 31(5) is mandatory. Supreme Court in para-17, in 7 of 9 case of Ark Builders has held that even though appellants would appear to be deriving undue advantage, the legal position cannot be changed and it would be wrong to tailor the law according to facts of a particular case. For the ready reference said Para 17 is reproduced below:

9. In the present case, no doubt the argument of respondent appears to be convincing that parties were aware of the award, however, there is nothing on record to show that signed copy of award was delivered prior to 8.5.2003, therefore, this court has no option except to hold that petition filed under Section 34 of the Act was not barred by limitation. Staying of appellants with respondent No. 1, return of record by Arbitrators to respondent No. 1 or forwarding letter dated 6.5.2003 of the arbitrators, at the most cumulatively indicate that appellants were aware of the award, however constructive knowledge, in the absence of delivery of award, is not sufficient to start limitation for filing appeal. The right of appeal is a right created by Statute and it is trite law that legislature while granting right to appeal may impose certain limitations including limitation of time. Court has limited power to condone delay of upto 30 days from the expiry of time granted to file appeal i.e. three months. Section 34(3) of the Act mandates counting of limitation from date of delivery and not knowledge. The provisions of limitation Act are not applicable so 1996 Act needs to be 8 of 9 interpreted strictly. Delay beyond 30 days may deprive a party his valuable right of appeal so provisions of Section 31(5) of the Act in the backdrop of proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act needs to be interpreted strictly. The language of Section 31(5) of the Act is plain and unambiguous so this court has no right to add or subtract any word in said sub section. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ARK Building (supra) law can not be tailored according to the facts of a particular case and applying the said judgment to the facts of present case, this court holds that limitation for filing objection petition under Section 34 of the Act would start from 8.5.2003. Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected delivery of signed copy of award even upon counsel of the party so judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Continental Telepower (supra) does not advance the cause of the respondent.