LexINDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE versus M/S ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 338 INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE v. M/s ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND ORS. December 2, 1977 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. ICAILASAM, JJ.] -!-imi~ation Act, 1963, _,s. 5, whetl1er covers delay in re-filing objections after rec1ificat1on of defects-Londonation when delay due to circumstances beyond litigant's control. In connection with a dispute between the parties, the appellant Sllbmitted his objections for setting aside the arbitration award. The objection petition was filed within the period of limitation, but was returned as defective, in that the necessary stamps were not affixed, and the date of the verification of the petition was not entered. The defects were rectified, but the appellant refiled his objections late, due to his advocate's misconduct. The delay was caused by circumstances beyond the appellant's control, but the High Court refused to condone the delay. Allowing t_he appeal the Court, D HELD : ( 1) There had not been any delay in preferring tho objections. -The delay, if any was in re-presentation of the objection petition after rectifying the defects, and the delay in re-presentation is not subject to the vigorous rests \Vhich are usually applied in excusing the delay in a petition under seiction 5 of the Limitation Act. [343 E-GJ Mahant Bikram Dass v. Fina11cial Commissioner & Ors. [1978] 1 SCR 262, applied. E (2) The delay is not due to any want of bona fides or care on the part • of the appellant, but due to circumstances beyond his control. He cannot be held guilty of negligence so as to disentitle him to plead sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers ample power on the High Court to exercise its powers in order to do justice to a litigant where the failure is not due to any fault of his. [344 A-C] State of West Bengal v. Administrator Howrah Municipality wul Ors., [1972) 2 S.C.R. 874 and Maha11t Ram Das v. Ganga Das, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 763; F applied. . G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 7-2-77 of the Delhi High Court 'in Suit No. 574-A of 1976. D. N. Mukherjee, D. P. Mukherjee, G. S. Chatterjee and A. K. Ganguli for the appellant. S. T. Desai and Bishamber Lal for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on November, 7, 1977 we had passed the operative part of the order stating that a reasoned judgment would follow. We now proceed to give the reasons . • This appeal is by special leave against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 1977 in suit No. 574-A of 1976 by a single judge of ~I I.S.I, v. ASSOC. BUILDERS (Kai/asam, J.) 339 the High Court of Delhi whereby he dismissed the appellant's petition A for condonation of delay in filing the objection for setting aside the arbitration award given by respondents 2 and 3. A contract was entered into between the appellant-Indian Statist.i- cal Institute-and the first respondent-Asfociated Builders & Ors., m respect of the work for construction of Indian Statistical Institute Campus at Hanz Khas, New Delhi. The contract provided for arbi- B tration for set~ling any dispute that may arise between the parties. A dispute arose and the matter was referred to respondents 2 and 3 who gave an award on 23rd July, 1976. On 6th August, 1976 the first respondent filed a petition under section 14 of the Arbitration Act in tae Delhi High Court calling .upon respondents 2 and 3 to submit the 'award and records of the arbitration proceedings to the Court. On 27th August, 1976 the arbitrators filed the award in the court. The C appellant was served with a notice on 31st August, 1976 calling upon it to submit the objection for setting aside the award within one month from the date of the service of the notice. The objection for setting aside the .award was filed in the High Court on 29th September, 1976 within the period of limitation. But as the objection petition was defec- tive, in that the necessary stamps were not affixed and the date of the verification of the petition was not entered, the memorandum of objec- D tion was returned on 12th October, 1976 for rectifying the defects. When the matter was taken up by the Deputy Registrar on 25th Octo- ber, 1976, Shri D. P. Mukherjee, Advo0 ate, appearing on behalf of the appellant made a s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.