Shri Ignatius C.D’Silva, major of age v. Ambelim, Assolna, Salcete, Goa
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 26th July, 2002. There shall be no order as to costs. P.V. HARDAS, J. ssm.
Judgment
Cause title
Shri Shantaram S. Salgaonkar, major of age, contractor, residing at Bainfol, Assolna, Salcete, Goa. .... Respondent
Shri S.S. Kantak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondent.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : JULY 11, 2002. By consent of parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. This is an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, at Margao, dated 16.4.2001 in Special (Arbi) Civil Suit No.147/95/A. The order of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao, decided the objections which had been taken by the present appellant.
It is needless to refer to the other facts, but it will suffice to state that the suit of the present respondent for appointment of arbitrator, was filed in the year 1995. The learned trial Court by order appointed the arbitrator in the year 1995 and the arbitrator entered upon the reference pursuant to the - 2 - order of the learned trial Court in the year 1997. The Award was passed in the year 2000. Since the arbitration proceedings had commenced in the year 1997, after the new Act i.e. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had come into force, the provisions of the new Act would be applicable and not the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (old Act).
The objections which had been filed by the present appellant, have been rejected by the learned trial Court and one of the grounds is that the objections had not been filed within the prescribed time. According to the learned trial Court, the present appellant was notified about filing of the Award by the Arbitrator on
7.12.2000 by substituted service and the objections were filed by the defendant (present appellant) on 15.1.2001. Therefore, according to the learned trial Court, the objections had been filed after a period of 30 days, which period is contemplated under the old Act. Therefore, the objections were time barred.
Operative part
I have heard Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. There is no dispute before me that the provisions of the new Act would be applicable and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in dismissing - 3 - the objections filed by the present appellant as being barred by time. Since the provisions of the new Act have not been followed, the Judgment of the learned trial Court dismissing the objections, cannot be sustained. On this short ground, therefore, the appeal under Arbitration Act, is allowed and the Judgment of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao dated 16.4.2001 in Special (Arbi) Civil Suit No.147/95/A is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court for proceeding afresh, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 26th July, 2002. There shall be no order as to costs. P.V. HARDAS, J. ssm.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Arbitration Act, 1940.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Jul 2002. The bench was P V HARDAS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.