JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. In the matter of disputes which had arisen between the parties under Agreement No. 15/EE/HD-X-9-10/ DDA/80-81, Mr. H.C. Sharma, Superintending Engineer (Plan Survey IV), Delhi Development Authority was appointed as Arbitrator. Reference having been made to him and the parties having submitted their submissions before him the Arbitrator on 5th August 1988 made and published his award. The award was caused to be filed in this Court on 10th August, 1988.
2. Notice of the riling of the award was issued to the parties. The respondent was served with the notice of filing of the award on 31.10.1988. While the petitioner did not file objections to the award, the respondent on 30th November, 1988 filed his objections. This objection petition comprised of only one page and did not mention anything as to what was the objection of the Delhi Development Authority to the award and as to why the same was liable to be set aside. The objections were signed by Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate for and on behalf of objectors. They were neither supported by any affidavit of the respondent nor any Vakalamama authorising Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate to file objections on behalf of the respondent was filed alongwith the said objections.
3. On 12th December, 1988 the Delhi Development Authority filed yet another petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. This time these objections were duly supported by an affidavit of the Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority as well as by the Vakalamama in favour of Counsel for the objectors to file the objections,
4. On these objections the Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the objection petition is within time? If not, its effect.
2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for reasons disclosed in IA No. 2093/89?
3. Relief.
5. In support of the objections the Delhi Development Authority has filed an affidavit. The deponent has not spoken a single word as to why the objections which had been filed earlier on 30th November, 1988 were not complete and why they were not accompanied by any affidavit and a Vakalamama in favour of the Advocate nor did it disclose as to why the Delhi Development Authority had to file another objection petition on 12th December, 1988 and what was the reason for not filing the objections within time. It will not be out of place to mention here that the objections are to be filed within 30 days of service of notice of filing of the award and the objections filed by D.D.A. on 12th December, 1988 were admittedly barred by time.
6. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mittal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent to argue their objections in spite of this case being shown in the cause list for the last 3 days.
Issue Nos. 1 and 2 :
7. I have gone through the purported objections dated 30th November, 1988 filed by the objector. Though these purported objections are within time as they were filed on 30th November, 1988 after service of notice on 31.10.1988. However, the petition was incomplete. There are only three paragraphs which give history about the appointment of the Arbitrator and the agreement noting is stated about the award nor any ground as to why the award was liable to be set aside. It was not complete and was not accompanied by either an affidavit or Vakalatnama in favour of Counsel. In my view, these are no objections in the eyes of law and I am, therefore, not taking congnizance of the same.
8. The second objection petition was filed on 12th December, 1988. Admittedly there was delay of 12 days in filing the objections. Neither any reasons have been given as to why there was a delay of twelve days in filing the objections nor any application has been filed for condensation of delay in filing the objection. Without there being any application for condensation of delay and without any sufficient cause shown to me for such delay, I do not find any ground why the delay should be condoned. In these circumstances I do not find any merit in the objection petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
9. I have gone through the award and I do not find any infirmity therein. There is no error apparent on the face of the award and I do not see any reason as to why the same should not be made a rule of the Court.
Issue No. 3
10. The objection petition having been dismissed I make this award dated 5.8.1988 a Rule of the Court and pass a decree in terms of the award in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the awarded amount from the date of the award till the date of decree at the rate of 10% per annum. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the same rate of interest from the date of decree till payment.
11. The decree shall be drawn and thereafter file be consigned to the Record Room.