JUDGMENT
Vineet Kothari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Udaipur dated 29.5.1999 making the arbitration award dated 31.3.1999 a Rule of Court upon an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
3. The arbitrator passed an award in favour of the applicant Shri Narendra Kumar Intodia respondent No. 1 in the present appeal on 31.3.1999 against some supplies made by him to Avas Vikas Sansthan, Udaipur and when the award was passed on 31.3.1999 an application under Section 17 of the Act was filed, upon which the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 making the same a Rule of Court was passed by the Court below.
4. This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board through its Resident Engineer on the ground that the said Avas Vikas Sansthan was itself wound up by the State Government on 15.3.1999 and, therefore, no award could be passed against the said Avas Vikas Sansthan, a Co-operative Society on 31.3.1999.
5. Shri B.D. PUrohit, learned Counsel for the appellant – Rajasthan Housing Board has fairly brought to the notice of the Court that vide order dated 15.3.1999 passed by the Urban Improvement Department of the State Government passed under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, the State Government while directing winding up (SIC) of the said Avas Vikas Sansthan directed that all the assets of the said Avas Vikas Sansthan shall be taken over by the Rajasthan Housing Board and it shall be responsible to take over those assets and deal with the same from the said date.
6. Learned Counsel however contends that the said Avas Vikas Sansthan is wound up or liquidated, the award become unenforceable against the Rajasthan Housing Board and, therefore, the learned Court below could not have made the said award as a Rule of Court. He also submits that there was delay in making the said award and, therefore, in the absence of any extension of time having been granted by the Court under Section 28 of the Act, the award was void and could not be enforced.
7. Per contra Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 vehemently contends that firstly the ground of the award being time barred was never raised in the reply filed by the appellant before the Court below in response to an application under Section 17 of the Act and, therefore, the said argument cannot be raised now and secondly, he submits that in any case the delay if any should be deemed to have been condoned by the Court while making the said award a Rule of Court. He further submits that as far as the question of liquidation or winding up (SIC) of the Avas Vikas Sansthan is concerned, the same is of no consequence and the same cannot render the arbitration award void because the entire assets of the said Avas Vikas Sansthan have been directed to be taken over by the Rajasthan Housing Board and, therefore, liability to discharge any decree or award in law will be that of the Rajasthan Housing Board who has stepped into the shoes of the said Avas Vikas Sansthan.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record and impugned order, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the learned district Judge making the said award a Rule of Court.
9. Firstly, as far as the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the award was time barred cannot be sustained at this stage, because the said plea was never raised before the Court below either in the reply or during the course of arguments. The same cannot be therefore permitted to be raised at this stage. Even, otherwise, since the Court has power to condone such delay, if any, as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, the Court should be deemed to have condoned the delay, if any, while making the award a Rule of Court.
10. As far as the question of liquidation or winding up (SIC) of Avas Vikas Sansthan is concerned, that also cannot render the award passed by the arbitrator void or invalid in any manner. The Rajasthan Housing Board is bound by the directions of the State Government as given under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, therefore, in pursuance of the order dated 15.3.1999 by which the assets of the Avas Vikas Sansthan were directed to be taken over by the Rajasthan Housing Board, the liability to satisfy any award or decree against the Avas Vikas Sansthan will be that of Rajasthan Housing Board and the Rajasthan Housing Board cannot contend that it is not liable to satisfy such decree or award. Having taken over the assets of the Avas Vikas Sansthan, it is under an obligation to satisfy any such award or decree passed by the Court of law.
11. Learned Counsel or the Housing Board then submitted that there is a separate Liquidation Committee constituted for this purpose who is supposed to look into the claim of the contractor in whose favour award was passed. It is for the Housing Board to see in what manner and before whom such claim for execution has to be lodged and that is not an issue before this Court to be decided.
12. Consequently, I do not find any force in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
