Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4683 of 2004
PETITIONER:
M/s. Bharat Engineering Service Technocrats & Co
RESPONDENT:
Executive Engineer and Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4683 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4684/2004, 4685/2004,
4713/2004, 4714/2004 AND 4715/2004
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment
and order dated 12th of September, 2003 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. Nos. 1466-1468 of 1998.
2. The common reasoned award passed by the learned Arbitrator
on 23rd of May, 1996 under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short ’the
Act’) and made a rule of the court by the Civil Court
on 20th of December, 1997 was set aside in its entirety by the High
Court only on the ground that the arbitrator had erroneously decided
the issue whether the claims preferred by the appellant were barred by
limitation. It is on record that the entire matter was remitted by the
High Court, despite the lapse of over 10 years since the reference was
made, to a different arbitrator for a fresh decision on merits.
3. In our view, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable
in law and the objections filed by the respondent-State against the
award ought to have been entertained by the Civil Court despite there
being a considerable delay in filing the same and in spite of the fact
that there was, in the first instance, no application for condonation of
delay. For this purpose, we have looked into the explanations given in
the application for condonation of delay in filing the objection under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are of the view that the
explanations offered do constitute sufficient cause in filing the
objection under Section 33 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we
set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as of the trial court
and the matter may be remitted back to the trial court for decision on
the objection filed under Section 33 of the Act. The objection under
section 33 of the Act shall be decided by the trial Court positively
within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it
after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order in
accordance with law.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed to the extent
indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.