IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DA'I'l3:D THIS THE 'gm DAY OF' SEPTEMBER
PRESEINT
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K§REE:DHA%§«RAb j
AND
THE HONBLE2 MR.J.Us_'_1'1cE' A§3i;I31L1Ai>§A'_V_' 1.
MFA.N0.2631/2'{§OLi
BETVVEEN:
Afrabhakara Raddy anti» . if A
B. Kumaraswa;;"1"iy_V dcly. g -.
Consortium, ~ _
R6p1'esentéd b?9°i..éaci= . "
Partner _A,TPfab'f1é11};,aV1'a .,Re_ddy, .. V V
N0.6--3v¥788'/"28, '
DurgaI'~J_aga1*,' .
Ameerpei, A _ _ '
Hycirabad «#5000 1-6. ..APPELLANT
3: P.Ha:'i Chandra Ready, Adv.,)
1; ' IE_{"é§.1"nz31.'.'21A}<i:;1AFhadustrial Areas
£3'f3\Ie.1op;Yient Board,
(A GV()Vx'.€I'1'i}'I1€1'1t of Ka.rnataka Undertaking)
AA .ARep1*ésent.ec1 by
r e1pp'o'i1.Tifi~e_d5
biased and that an independent. El1"'{)i'[4l7£i€01:"':'~.jS"--,:'lI(). he"
appointed to acljudiceue the elaiifiik. .9
on 4-~i0~ 1999. This Court Vhelral ie.hV*.§1*t.._theV
in the C.M.P. could as well u.neler 9_SveetiV§31'1 34 of
ihe Act and dismissecl""£h'e_ "oi; .l3--~4~2000. The
appellam p1't'f€l'1'~f3 d petiijiori to Appeal
(Civil) before the Supreme
Court.:V"l5he:_saieiVe§ise off, with the following
observatiofrez
* _ "5Li~'(e) Ne". '1~i-986 /2000
llrivyiew of our latest judgment on the
Korikan Railway Corpri. Ltd. & Ors.
Mehul coustmcuon C0. [2000(6]
"3V(_:"3AI,EZ} against" the irnpugried award, remedy
lies elsewhere and. t,heref0re._ the petitieiier
99 may avail of the said remedy. 'I"h_e period
which the pE*{".itiOl'i€'.l' has spent in presenting
4/
LA
the pt',l",il".l()l'l in this Court as well as in the
High Co1_i1"t shall be ('.X(',l1l(lt':'C.l.
The Special l,eave Petition st.and:§_
disposed of £1(.'4()(T)I'CllI'1§.{l}7."'
6. T he appellant. p1.11'su.2mt to the .
Horrble Supreme Court. filed a p.eti_t_;ion_--'U'/'s;:34ll'of
Act in AC.No.73/2000 before
Bangalore. The Civil Court Clisrn.issed"1;he. pelt.Vitior1i--Von--'lthe = L'
ground of limitation. Herice._t:--1fii_$=21]Opeal. "
7. Sri G21r1gi1'e'ddyQl_i€serl:'r1edl_n.e(>I_iu1sel for the
appell{intlet.rent1otlVély:lSti.li»mit.tled the following grounds:--
(ilv pltis «under sseetion 31 of the Act
that the .=3_wai~d t()~._'oe:.V ll(iornn111.1e1icatied by regist;ered post
to t..h:¢llparty. he__l1rr3ita.t.ion would Cornmenee from the
of award. In this case, it is submitted
-.t.l:1gtlltli.ej1=el n_o_j.rnat;eri3.l with regard to the receipt of the
2:t.wfai_l2"d appellant. The trial Court erred in
j 3.sstiroii'1g that the award could have been received by
,l:t,l'Ieilparties about 2 to 3 days 2-tftier it is pcisted.
%/
('J
(ii) The award is sent to M / s.A.Prabhakara
Reddy and Co.. who is not a pany to the award. In fact
the correct address of the claimant. before the Arbitrator
ie "A.P1'abh:.-Ikar Reddy and B..K1.I1rIa1"aswamy
Consort.inm, repiesented by the lead
A.Pra'ohakara Reddy. Noe-3--7e8/28, I)tI----rgagi:;gga.[+'.---~I.'I-
Ameerpet, Hyderabad". The award" is serif'It-o'_»a"'wr*ong,
person and to a wrong addrees, Zheriee _ti.hereAAis._no'-Vpalippdp f
eommu.nieat.ion of award in law. The learn'ed've'ou':1s"el "
relied upon the decision of t;h_e"~~Iélo.n'b1.e :'3i.Iprei2fie'''Court ''
in UNION OF INDIA Vs. TE(_3__C':0,__'F}3ICI-'IY« ElYQiZNEERS
, & CONTRACTORS [2i)._{._5','}'${_11'_V_R..A:J...__'5AO6} to buttress the
said (:or1tent.ion.
'En.iV7»tvhe'V;'fVabele:fiee cjhfhproof' of correct date of
con1m1,i"nieat:i'onV'of'«.aI~'.ai'tl:'to appellant, the date of
filing of be reckoned as a date for
eom41;neneen1e11t,V_ot'lirnitation. in that view, the learned
' V'«.CO1inee5l'"retibnlittedlmthvat the petition filed under section
34 for .t,l'1-e_"Pge;'t, ls within time.
t T he learned counsel for the respondent No.1
A jvreliled upon the decision of the I~{on’ble Supreme Court
II; UNION or INDIA vs. M/s.POPULAR
4
«.3
CONSTRUCTION CO., [AIR 2001 SC 4010) to contend
that the period 0i’li1nitation prescribed U/934(3) of the
Act rigidly applies and tlliere is no scope for C()I1C1()11’Eiiji,()H
of delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limit.atii0n~«~j\_¢t,. ”
9. The case file of
secured. In the said ease. with the €31′ the-._a°v.Iard’.is
produced at Annexure — ‘A1 At”
page of the document a1t”=«.AnV11eXL’1i’eAl”9 12. an
endorseinerzt. niade-.._if3:) t:’he::%f’l’ei_:t:_ i:h_at. “received on
10.06.1999”. It is inferablheft.h9.t :t:he”9ai”d}’endorsement is
made the document in the
custedyef produced by the appellant.
On is an endorsement in ink that
V’pc»vs–s.–«’and acknowledgement due is sent
That endorsement. is obviously made by
It is t.here’l’ore becomes evident from the
V’-».reC0rd_t.hat the appellant has received the award on
%/
1999.
before this C01.1rt: on the ‘misis of t.i’1e awa1’d received by
bun. 1TK3eopycfl’flu9am%rdifledin CRdPfi&L8§}i999
shows t:1’1at the award was Ieeeiveci on
hence the 1imi’rai:io1*1 is to be reek(_)ned_–£’ro–1:fi..th~e 2
date.
12. The 7f*i011’b1e S1.1;:<1;em&' Cei.,1f1. in b';L}?:
that the time spent. iii <1or1di4ieiAi.1:1guflhe this
High Court and the be excluded.
if done so, st:i1lit" i__s fiied U/5.34}
of the Act. orders of the
'oarred by time. The
fi1"1dir1g§<)f"'t:_hér SO1,1Hd and proper. Hence,
the appeal C1'iS11'1iS¥'}€_dL'~~*"
Sd/3
JUDGE
Sd/-3
JUDGE