The Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Chairman Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Chairman v. urel Grids and others The Arkitekturel Grids and others
Case Details
2024 (O&M) FAO-4677-2024 (O&M) Sr. No.114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH FAO FAO-4677-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2025 Date of Decision : The Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Chairman Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Chairman …Appellant Versus urel Grids and others The Arkitekturel Grids and others …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate, Present : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. for the LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI *** 2025 CM-34-CII-2025 This is an application for placing on record the additional This is an application for placing on record the This is an application for placing on record the affidavit of the Executive Officer Improvement Trust Ludhiana as well affidavit of the Executive Officer Improvement Trust Ludhiana as well affidavit of the Executive Officer Improvement Trust Ludhiana as well letter dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure A-5). letter dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure A For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, For the reasons stated in the application, the same is For the reasons stated in the application, the same is ubject to all just exceptions. subject to all just exceptions. taken on record. Document (Annexure A-5) is taken on record. Document (Annexure A CM-17391-CII CII-2024 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 50 days This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 50 days This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 50 days filing the appeal. in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 50 days in re filing the appeal is condoned. delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-17392-CII CII-2024 This is an application for staying the operation of the This is an application for stay This is an application for stay award dated September 28, 2018 and also the execution award dated September 28, 2018 and also impugned award dated September 28, 2018 and also proceedings which are now pending. proceedings which are now pending. VANDANA 2025.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 2024 (O&M) FAO-4677-2024 (O&M) main case. The same is taken up with the main case. The same is taken up with the Main case Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order dated February 19, 2024 that the impugned order dated 19, 2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in an application under Section 34 Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short should be set aside. should be set aside. 2. She submits that it is only by way of an electronic mail, a copy She submits that it is only by way of an electronic mail, a copy She submits that it is only by way of an electronic mail, a copy of the awards and December 07, 2018 were s dated September 28, 2018 and December 07, 2018 were on September 28, 2018 and December 7, received by the appellant-Trust on September 28, 2018 and December 7, received by the appellant 2018, respectively. However, the certified copy of the award 2018, respectively . However, the certified copy of the awards were received on March 15, 2019. Therefore, the time period stipulated under Section 34 on March 15, 2019. Therefore, the time period stipulated under Section 34 on March 15, 2019. Therefore, the time period stipulated under Section 34 ) of the 1996 Act should have been computed from March 15, 2019. (3) of the 1996 Act should have been computed from March 15, 2019. ) of the 1996 Act should have been computed from March 15, 2019. 3. District Judge, Ludhiana computed Had the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana computed Had the learned the same from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the the same from the date of the certified copy of the award and then the proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act filed on May 30, 2019 the proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 A the proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 A within the stipulated period of 90 would have been deemed to be instituted within the stipulated period of 90 would have been days as provided by the Act. She contends that t days as provided by the Act. She contends that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error of law on the face of the record and District Judge committed an error of law on the face of the record and District Judge committed an error of law on the face of the record and self by passing the impugned judgment and order dated misdirected himself by passing the impugned judgment and order dated misdirected him February 19, 2024. February 19, 2024. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. material on record. 5. Vide order dated October 01, 2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Vide order dated October 01, 2024 Vide order dated October 01, 2024 Hon’ble Court allowed the appellant Court allowed the appellant to file an affidavit to file an affidavit specifying the date VANDANA 2025.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 2024 (O&M) FAO-4677-2024 (O&M) on which the signed copy of the award dated September 28, 2018 was on which the signed copy of the award dated September 28, 2018 was on which the signed copy of the award dated September 28, 2018 was received by it. received by it. 6.
Legal Reasoning
This Court finds that the first award was dated September 28, This Court finds that the first award was dated September 28, This Court finds that the first award was dated September 28, was received vide email dated September 28, 2018. 2018 and the same was received vide email dated September 28, 2018. 2018 and the same Thereafter, review application was filed before the learned Arbitrator. The Thereafter, review application was filed before the learned Arbitrator. The Thereafter, review application was filed before the learned Arbitrator. The said review application was decided by the learned Arbitrator vide award said review application was decided by the learned Arbitrator vide award said review application was decided by the learned Arbitrator vide award dated December 07, 2018. A copy of the said award was received through dated December 07, 2018. A copy of the said award was re dated December 07, 2018. A copy of the said award was re email on December 07, 2018 itself by the appellant email on December itself by the appellant-Trust. 7. The provisions of Section 34(3) of 1996 Act are clear and The provisions of Section 34(3) of 1996 Act are clear and The provisions of Section 34(3) of 1996 Act are clear and unambiguous. Section 34 is reproduced herein for ready . Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act is reproduced herein for ready reference:- 1996 “ Arbitration And Conciliation Act, “Section 34 (3) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, (3) An application for setting aside may not be made An application for setting aside may not be made (3) after three months have elapsed from the date on which the after three months have elapsed from the date on which the after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award party making that application had received the arbitral award party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under secti or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date or, if a request had been made under secti on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may application within the said period of three months it may application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” but not thereafter. 8. The Section clearly stipulates that the time does not start The Section clearly stipulates that t The Section clearly stipulates that t from the date when the certified copy of the award is received by running from the date when the certified copy of the award is received by from the date when the certified copy of the award is received by seeking to challenge the same. The time starts running from the the party seeking to challenge the same. The time starts running from the seeking to challenge the same. The time starts running from the application under Section 34 of date on which the party seeking to file the application under Section 34 of date on which the party a request is made under Section 33 of the 1996 Act receives the award or if a request is made under Section 33 of the 1996 Act receives the award or the 1996 Act f for correction and interpretation of the award etation of the award, from the date on
Decision
request is disposed of. which that request is disposed of. VANDANA 2025.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 2024 (O&M) FAO-4677-2024 (O&M) 9. There is no dispute that the award There is no dispute that the award after review was dated December 07, 2018 and was received by email on the very same day. December 07, 2018 and was received by email December 07, 2018 and was received by email perversity in the order dated Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order dated Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or February 19, 2024 whereby the application of the appellant under Section February 19, 2024 whereby the application of the appellant under Section February 19, 2024 whereby the application of the appellant under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, was dismissed being 34 of the 1996 Act was dismissed being filed beyond the period of limitation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2152 of 2011(arising out of S.L.P. Court in Civil Appeal No.2152 of 2011(arising out of S.L.P. (civil) No.14308 of 2010) dated 28.02.2011 (civil) No.14308 of 2010) dated 28.02.2011 “State of Maharashtra and to contend that the time would start others Vs. M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd.” to contend that the time would start others Vs. M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd.” a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party running from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party running from the challenging the same. challenging the same. 11. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts since the The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts since The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts since award was not delivered for a substantial period of time to the respondent in award was not delivered for a substantial period of time to the respondent in award was not delivered for a substantial period of time to the respondent in not paid the fee of the learned the arbitration proceedings as it had not paid the fee of the learned the arbitration proceedings as it had arbitrator. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that arbitrator. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the delivery of the arbitral award to the party has to be effective the arbitral award to the party effective and the party has to receive It is only after the delivery of the award and receipt of the same It is only after the delivery of the award and the award. It is only after the delivery of the award and by the party, the computation of the period of limitation will commence. by the party, the computation of the period of limitation will commence. by the party, the computation of the period of limitation will commence. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the Admittedly, it was on December 7, 2018 that the award was said judgment. Admittedly, it was on December 7, 2018 that the award was said judgment. received via email by the appellant herein and received via email by the ap pellant herein and the proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was instituted on May 30, 2019 after expiry of a Section 34 of the 1996 Act was instituted on May 30, 2019 Section 34 of the 1996 Act was instituted on May 30, 2019 period of limitation i.e. limitation i.e. 120 days (90 +30 days) 120 days (90 +30 days) as stipulated under the 1996 Act. VANDANA 2025.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 2024 (O&M) FAO-4677-2024 (O&M) 14. The learned Additional District Judge has correctly appreciated The learned Additional District Judge has correctly appreciated The learned Additional District Judge has correctly appreciated Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. the position of law. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. the position of law. FAO No.4677- -2024 is dismissed. 15. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE January 28, 202 Vandana , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5