Dismissed

Charanjeet Kaur v. National Highway Authority of India

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2023CR/24/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh examined the limitation for filing an arbitration appeal under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench dismissed the petition, holding the revision meritless while granting liberty to raise limitation objections in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision dismissed; liberty granted to raise limitation objections in trial court's written statement.

Charanjeet Kaur Vs National Highway Authority of India — Arbitration | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Civil Revision No. 24 of 2021

¶4

Charanjeet Kaur W/o Late Harbhajan Singh, aged about 73 years,

¶5

Paramjeet Singh S/o Late Harbhajan Singh, aged about 44 years, Both the applicant are R/o Tatiband, Raipur (CG)

¶6

Seema Gurvindar Singh Munde W/o Gurvindar Singh Munde, aged about 49 years, R/o Plot No.188, Flat No.403, Honey Chetali Apartment, Wardman Nagar, Nagpur, Bagadganj, Maharashtra 440008.

¶7

Ajeet Kaur Chhabda S/o Gurbax Singh, aged about 48 years, 40, cross street-2, Anand Nagar, Central Avenue Marg, Smriti Nagar, Motilal Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (CG) R/o Plot No.188, Flat No.403, Honey Chetali Apartment, Wardman Nagar, Nagpur.

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

National Highway Authority of India, through Project Director, Project Execution Unit Raipur, House No.5196, Behind of BTI College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG)

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Competent Authority Land Acquisition and Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Raipur (CG)

¶12

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prasunn Bhaduri, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board

¶13

07/08/2023

¶14

This civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the order dated 24.2.2021 passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Arbitration Case No.35/2019 whereby the application filed by the non-applicant No.1 Harbhajan Singh under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC read with Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act of 1996”) has been rejected.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and Central Government filed an arbitration case before the District Judge, Raipur which was registered as Arbitration Case No.35/2019 against the order dated 30.7.2018 passed

¶16

by learned Additional Collector and Arbitrator (NHAI) on the ground that the said order was passed ex-parte and they did not receive notice of the case.

¶17

The Non-applicant No.1 Harbhajan Singh filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC read with Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 before the learned District Judge on the ground that the case filed by NHAI is beyond limitation as it was filed after 119 days and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶18

Learned District Judge after hearing both the parties rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 24.2.2021 on the ground that the respondents/NHAI filed the suit within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the award and as such, the suit is within limitation. Hence this revision filed by the petitioners.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the District Judge is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and as such, liable to be set aside. The Court below has erred in holding that the respondents had sufficient reasons for causing delay in preferring appeal before the Court below. The learned Court below committed an error in holding that the delay caused by the respondents is bonafide. It is well settled principle of law that mercy will be available to those who come before the Court with clean hands and not to the arrogant or who disobey the command of the Court. Learned Court below failed to appreciate the material available on record as also the order passed by the Arbitrator. It is clearly observed by the Arbitrator that notice was sent to the respondents/NHAI from 20.1.2017 to 31.5.2018 for as many as seven times but no reply was filed by NHAI either in person or

¶20

through their counsel. This order was passed on 30.7.2018 and the respondents/NHAI filed this case on 16.5.2019, which is clearly time barred but the learned Court below rejected the application of the petitioners. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/NHAI supports the impugned order and submits that the learned District Judge has rightly calculated the limitation and rejected the application of the petitioners.

¶22

Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mattes of Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, AIR 2005 SC 1832 and State of Maharashtra & others Vs. M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2011 SC 1374 .

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

According to the petitioners, the limitation started from the date of award i.e. 30.7.2018 whereas the respondents/NHAI filed the case before the learned District Judge after 127 days. The respondents/NHAI came to know about the said award on 7.12.2018 but filed application for obtaining certified copy of the award after 44 days, therefore, the case filed by them was clearly time barred. However, as per Section 34(5) of the Act of 1996, it is the duty of the Arbitrator to send a copy of the award to the parties. Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 reads as under:

¶25

“ 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -

¶26

(1) xxx xxx xxx

¶27

(2) xxx xxx xxx

¶28

(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

¶29

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months, it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”

¶30

The learned trial Court also observed that the respondents filed this case within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the award, so this case is within limitation and accordingly, dismissed the application of the petitioners. This finding appears to be based on proper appreciation of the facts and law. In this case, as per objection of the petitioners, it is a mixed question of facts and law and therefore, it can be decided only after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence adduced by them in support of their contention.

¶31

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this civil revision being meritless is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all the objections with regard to limitation in their written statement before the concerned trial Court who shall decide the same after recording evidence of the parties in accordance with law at the time of final decision.

¶32

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶33

Khan

Charanjeet Kaur v. National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjeet Kaur v. National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayavati Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ramla Netam Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Sudhakar Hatwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

V. S. Thakur and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

D.k. Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Satish Saraf Vs Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalay