The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside an order dismissing a Section 34 object as time-barred. The court allowed the revision, holding that the lower court should decide the matter on merits.
Impugned order dated 08.09.2012 is set aside; lower court directed to decide the matter on merits.
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.
Manoj Kumar 2018.05.17 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R.No.2995 of 2016
#1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.2995 of 2016
Malava Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors.
....Respondents
Date of Order: 14.5.2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate and Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for the respondents.
AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)
[1]. Petitioner has assailed order dated 08.09.2012 vide which the objections of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 28.01.2009 were dismissed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur as time barred.
[2]. Award was passed by the Arbitrator on 28.01.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Award was never supplied to the petitioner which was mandatory. The objections could have been filed against the award on receipt of copy thereof. Since no award was supplied, question of limitation should not have been raked up by the trial Court.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision dated 16.09.2013 passed in CR No.4828 of 2012 titled as Tez Kaur Vs. Union of India and others to contend that the date of award as a starting period of limitation must always be taken as a date of knowledge of the award.
[4]. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly
#2#
C.R.No.2995 of 2016
concedes to the aforesaid preposition and says that matter in controversy is squarely covered by judgment rendered in CR No.2927 of 2016 titled as Ramesh Chander Vs. UOI and Ors decided on 20.9.2016.
[5]. In view of aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2012 is set aside. Lower Court is directed to
decide the matter on merits.
May 14, 2018 `(AMIT RAWAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the date of the umpire as a starting period of limitation must always be taken as a date of knowledge of the award when the award was never supplied.
Whether the objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is time-barred if the award copy was not supplied to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tez Kaur Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶3
CR No.4828 of 2012
Ramesh Chander Vs. UOI and OrsRelied on¶4
CR No.2927 of 2016
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malava Singh
Union of India
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
