In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
FAO No. 104 of 2008
Date of decision: July 30, 2008
State of Haryana
... Appellant
versus
Satish Bhatia and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate
for the respondents.
A.N. Jindal, J (Oral)
C.M. No. 14201-CII of 2008 is allowed.
Reply is taken on record.
This application as well as the main appeal are being disposed
of on merits with the consent of both the parties.
The award in this case was passed on 21.1.2006, which was
received in the office of the appellant on 27.1.2006. It has been stated by
Mr. Deepak Jindal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, that
review petition was filed against the award before the Arbitrator on
17.2.2006 which was decided on 26.3.2006. The copy of the order was
received in the office on 30.3.2006, therefore, after excluding the period
during which the review petition remained pending before the Arbitrator,
the appeal having been filed on 18.6.2006 is within limitation.
To the contrary, it has been urged that the period of limitation
in the ordinary course for filing the award was to expire on 27.4.2006 and it
could be relaxed only to another one month i.e. up to 27.5.2006. As per
Sub-clause III of Section 30 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 no
further period beyond 30 days could be extended for filing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this period from
17.2.2006 to 30.3.2006 is liable to be excluded as per provisions of Section
FAO No. 104 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Heard.
Filing of the review application could not stop the period of
limitation when it had already began and the case of the appellant could not
be covered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the appellant fully
knew that the limitation has already began to run and no period of limitation
could be extended beyond 27.5.2006 as per provisions of Sub-section (iii)
of Section 30 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant
also could not be extended benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as
the sine quo non for getting benefit was to file the legal proceedings
bonafide and in good faith, but in the instant case the appellant did not opt
for any such legal proceedings before a competent authority but he opted for
filing a review petition which was an independent remedy.
Even otherwise, the grounds set up by the plaintiff for
challenging the impugned order are that the contractor could not be made
payment for the reason that he had committed delay in completion of the
work which was lastly extended by the appellant to 30.6.2001. Again the
learned counsel for the appellant has failed to furnish any date as to when
the work was completed by the Contractor.
Under the circumstances, no grounds to stay the impugned
award are made out. Therefore, the application as well as the appeal are
dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to make payment to the
contractor along with interest within fortnight on furnishing adequate surety
to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal.
July 11, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge