High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ved Singh, Contractor v. Executive Engineer & Ors - FAO-23-2005  RD-P&H 2528 (24 April 2006)
FAO No.23 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH
F.A.O. No.23 of 2005(O&M)
Date of decision: April 4,2006
Ved Singh, Contractor V. Executive Engineer and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the appellant.
Shri Sanjeev Kadian , Advocate with Shri R.K.Hooda,Advocate,for the respondents
For the reasons given in the application, the order dated February 14,2006 is recalled. The main appeal is restored back to its original number.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the controversy also.
The appellant before this Court is the Contractor. His application for setting aside the award dated April 21,2003 passed by the Arbitrator has been dismissed as barred by limitation by the learned District Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the provisions of section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, to contend that the limitation for filing the application under section 34 of Act is to commence from the date the copy of the award was served upon a party.
Learned counsel, in this regard, has specifically referred to para 3 of the application for condonation of delay filed by the Contractor-appellant before he learned District Judge. In the aforesaid application, it had been averred by the Contractor that no copy of the award was sent by the Arbitrator to the applicant-appellant till the date of filing of the application.
CM 5721-C of 2006 and
FAO No.23 of 2005 2
Learned counsel has also referred to reply filed by the respondent before the learned District Judge. The averments made in the application,as noticed above, had never been denied by the respondents. On that basis, the learned counsel has argued that the learned District Judge has merely taken note of the absence of the Contractor in the Arbitration proceedings and had not considered the question of reference of the service of the award upon the Contractor.
From the perusal of the order, the arguments of the learned counsel appear to be correct. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed.
The order dated august 6,2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge for fresh decision of the application filed by the Contractor. While considering the aforesaid application afresh, learned District judge shall take into consideration the respective pleadings of the parties and also shall take into consideration the provisions of the Act.
The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sonepat on May 2,2006.
April 4,2006 (Viney Mittal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.