Paramjit Singh & ANR v. Punjab State Warehousing Corp Ltd & ANR

FAO-2834-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2834-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.05.2019 Paramjit Singh and another ...Appellants

Versus

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and another

...Respondents

***** CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the appellants.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) This is a first appeal that has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to challenge the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award dated 28.05.2002 has been dismissed. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the Addl. District Judge has erred in dismissing the objections solely on the ground that the same were not maintainable being barred by time.

It is contended that in fact an ex parte award had been passed on 28.05.2002 and a copy of the award was not served upon him which SATYAWAN 2019.05.24 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2834-2017 -2would make it a sufficient reason for the award to be set aside. It is contended that the appellants herein were abroad and that is why a copy of the award was not served upon him. It is contended that it is only in the execution proceedings he became aware that an award had been passed against him.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and on a query put by this Court, this Court is informed that the appellant appeared before the Executing Court on 03.02.2013. In such a situation, it can be safely presumed that the appellants herein were aware of the award dated 28.05.2002 that was passed against him. Taking 03.02.2013 as the date when he was served with a copy of the award, a period of three months to file his objections under Section 34 of the Act and further a period of 30 days with an application for condonation of delay would have lapsed on 02.06.2013, however, the objections were filed on 12.09.2013 and, therefore, the objections are barred by limitation. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, this appeal stands dismissed.

22.05.2019 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.

Whether reportable No.

SATYAWAN 2019.05.24 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document