K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN v. Popular Construction Co. {2001(8) SCC470}. In the result there is no merit
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arb. Appeal NO: 2 OF 2009-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd January, 2009.JUDGMENTBALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.The petitioner in O.P(Arbitration) No: 83/2006 is theappellant. The appellant filed an application under Section Section34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act') to set aside the arbitration award passed bythe Arbitrator on 28.1.2005 in favour of the respondent/contractor. There was 350 days delay in filing the application under Section 34of the Act. So I.A 628/2006 was filed in the above O.P(Arbitration)praying to condone the said delay. The District Court, by theimpugned order dated 6.8.2007 dismissed the said I.A holding thatin view of the limitation contained in sub-section (3) of Section 34 itis powerless to condone the above delay of 350 days. Based onthat decision the O.P(Arbitration) itself was dismissed. Challengingthose orders the present appeal is filed.2. We heard the learned Govt. Pleader for the appellant andalso Mr. K.Babu Thomas for the respondent.3. Going by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 34 we ARBAPPEAL No: 2/20092find that the application to set aside the award should be filedwithin three months from the date of receipt of the award. Thecourt is given power to condone the delay of one month only. Sincethe delay admittedly comes to 350 days, the application to condonethe delay was rightly rejected by the court below. The view takenby the court below is fully covered by the decision of the ApexCourt in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. {2001(8) SCC470}. In the result there is no merit in the appeal and it isaccordingly dismissed.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIRJudge K. SURENDRA MOHANJudgejj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.----------------------------------------------------M.F.A.NO:-----------------------------------------------------JUDGMENTDated:
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Jan 2009. The bench was K SURENDRA MOHAN, BALAKRISHNAN NAIR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.