Gothra Sheoran Coop L/C Society Ltd v. Executive Engineer And ORS

FAO No.1973 of 2015 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1973 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:06.10.2016 The Gothra Sheoran Co-operative L/C Society Limited, Gothra ... Appellant Vs.

Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another .. Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The appellant - objector is aggrieved of the dismissal of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act") for setting aside of the award dated 26.07.2010.

Mr. R.A.Sheoran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that copy of the award awarding compensation to the tune of `4,93,887/- along with interest was not only erroneous, much less, against the public policy. In fact, the appellant was not served and proceeded against ex parte. The objections were filed from the date of the knowledge as there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 31(5) of 1996 Act.

Per contra, Mr. S.K.Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on Savita 2016.10.13 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

FAO No.1973 of 2015 (O&M) {2} behalf of the respondents submits that there is a categoric observation by the objecting Court with regard to acknowledging the copy of the award by the appellant on 18.08.2010, whereas, objections were filed on 25.07.2011, therefore, the same were beyond the period of limitation, as per Section 34

(3) of 1996 Act, i.e., 90 days + 30 days grace period, total =120 days and thus, urges this Court for affirming the findings under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

The facts noticed above would reveal that in fact, the appellant was aware of the award dated 26.07.2010, copy of which was received by it as per the intimation dated 18.08.2010. No explanation has come forth in not filing the objections within the statutory period as noticed above. Since the provision of Limitation Act does not apply, therefore, the objections were also held to be barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by the Objecting Court.

There is no merit in the appeal. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order.

The appeal stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE October 06, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2016.10.13 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh