Three first appeals were dismissed as time-barred. The High Court held that the appeals filed under Section 37 against a dismissal of Section 34 objections were barred by limitation, rejecting arguments regarding service of notices and the award.
The first appeals along with pending applications are dismissed as time-barred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2. FAO No.260/2017
VARSANI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Jaspal Singh, Mr. Omar Hoda and Mr. Namrah Nasir, Advocates. versus RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
3. FAO No. 261/2017
VARSANI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Jaspal Singh, Mr. Omar Hoda and Mr. Namrah Nasir, Advocates. versus RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
FAO Nos. 259/2017, 260/2017 & 261/2017 Page 1 of 5
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
respondent/lender for recovery of a sum of Rs.57,53,064.65 along with interest. In these arbitration proceedings, it has been found as a matter of fact on record by the court below that the appellants/petitioners were duly served but the appellants/petitioners failed to appear in the arbitration proceedings. The court below has arrived at a finding that notices which were sent to the appellants/petitioners by the registered post were at the admitted addresses of the appellants/petitioners, and therefore, there is deemed service of the arbitration proceedings. The court below has also referred to the fact that even the earlier recallcum-demand notice dated 30.8.2013 sent to the appellants/petitioners, the same was received back with a note of „refusal‟. The court below
FAO Nos. 259/2017, 260/2017 & 261/2017 Page 2 of 5
also notes that addresses of the appellants/petitioners mentioned in the postal envelopes, whether the addresses were those as mentioned in the demand notice or notices issued in the arbitration proceedings including the notice to proceed ex-parte , are the same addresses of the appellants/petitioners as mentioned in their petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. More importantly, the court below has come to a finding of fact that the Award dated 20.12.2013 was sent to the appellants/petitioners by way of registered post and the appellants/petitioners were duly served of the Award on 28.12.2013 as there were found two AD cards bearing the stamp of the appellant no.1/petitioner no.1 and the signatures of two other persons on the AD cards, lying in the arbitral record. The court below has held that the appellants/petitioners have not denied the official stamp of the appellant no.1/petitioner no.1 or the signatures on the AD cards. The aforesaid aspects have been dealt with exhaustively by the court below in paras 6 to 8 of the impugned judgment and which paras read as
under:-
“6. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were not served with the notice of commencement of arbitration as well as notice of arbitration proceedings by the Ld. Arbitrator. But the perusal of arbitral record has revealed that the notices were sent to the petitioners by way of post at the following stages:-
FAO Nos. 259/2017, 260/2017 & 261/2017 Page 3 of 5
FAO Nos. 259/2017, 260/2017 & 261/2017 Page 4 of 5
denied the official stamp of the petitioner no.1 nor signatures on the said AD cards. It is also pertinent to mention here that the addresses of petitioners on these AD cards are the same as mentioned in the present petition, meaning thereby that the addresses are correct. Hence, it stands proved that the petitioners were duly served with the Award on 28.12.2013. But since the present petition U/Sec.34 of the Act was filed on 24.11.2015 i.e. much after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days, the same is barred by limitation and accordingly, requires to be dismissed.” (underlining added)
been dealt with in detail on merits inasmuch as the objections were found to have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,and which is the period of 90 days plus condonation of delay of additional 30 days i.e total 120 days, and hence the objection petition necessarily has to be dismissed as time barred in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470.
MAY 30, 2017/ ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FAO Nos. 259/2017, 260/2017 & 261/2017 Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are maintainable given the statutory limitation bar.
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the Section 34 objections as time-barred despite the appellants' claim of non-service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
VARSANI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANR.
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
