Decided on August 06,1993

Hotel Corp Of India Appellant
Northern Sanitation Respondents


- (1.)IN this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed on 4 -1 -1993 under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, against the order dated. 27 -8 -1992 passed by the learned Single Judge making the award of the Arbitrator as rule of the Court, an application within the purview of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been attracted into play on 17 -3 -1993 for condo nation of delay with regard to the filing of the aforementioned appeal, filed beyond the period of limitation by forty days by the appellant/applicant.
(2.)THE case as set out by the appellant/applicant is that although the certified copy had been applied on 7 -9 -1992 and obtained on 1 -10 -1992 at Jammu, the counsel at Delhi, who were to prepare the Appeal were not aware that the certified copy had, in fact, been received. It was thus under the bona fide belief that the certified copy of the judgment is yet to be obtained, the appeal was prepared and sent to Jammu for filing and it was for this reason that the appeal was un -accompanied by an application for condo nation of delay. The counsel at Delhi for the first time learnt on 2 -3 -1933 that the certified copy of the judgment had. In fact, been received at Jammu on 1 -10 -1992 itself. Immediately on learning this fact the present application has been prepared and dispatched from Delhi in 4 3 -1993 for filing before this Court, It was submitted that the delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal is for the aforesaid reasons the bona fide mistaken belief of the counsel in Delhi that the certified copy of the judgment has not been received and there Las been no negligence on the part of the counsel for the appellant.
(3.)OBJECTION were filed by the other side and after challenging the application on the merits of the case it was averred that there is no good cause shown by the applicant for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. The reasons for not filing the appeal within time are not bona fide and are attributable to the sheer negligence of the application. The counsel in Delhi was already possessed with a copy of the judgment and had accordingly drafted the appeal and in case the copy of the judgment was received on 1 -10 -1992, the appellant could not be expected to sit silent and not to contact his counsel in Delhi.
Heard learned counsel for the parties; also bestowed out thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.