- (1.) All these appeals arising out of separate orders dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Bulandshahar, have been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned District Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act as being time barred. As in all these appeals, common question of fact and law are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The First Appeal From Order No. 354 of 2011 is being treated as the leading case.
(2.) The Respondent herein M/s. An ads, Chowk Bazar, Bulandshahar, filed claim petition before the Commissioner and Director Industries, U.P. (Facilitation Council) Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) under Section 6(2) of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993 as amended by Act No. 28 of 1998.
(3.) The Commissioner and Director Industries, U.P. Kanpur, acting as the arbitrator gave an award awarding the sums claimed with interest @ 5% above floor rate charged by the scheduled banks on credit limit. The Appellant challenged the proceedings of the claim petition as also the award given by the Commissioner by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3795 of 2008 along with other writ petitions. The learned single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.05.2008 dismissed all the writ petitions by holding that Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act makes the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 except Sub-section (1) of Sections 40, 41 and 43 of the Act applicable to the statutory arbitration provided under the Interest on Delyed Payments to the Small Scale Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993 as amended by Act No. 28 of 1998 and, further that the provisions of Sections 4 and 10 of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 do not override the provisions of the Interest of the Delayed Payments to Small Scale Ancillary Act, 1993 as amended in 1998 and the decision of the Facilitation Council of its own jurisdiction is subject to challenge only under Section 34 of the Act and a writ petition for setting-aside the statutory award is ordinarily not maintainable. This Court consequently dismissed all the writ petitions with liberty to the present Appellant to challenge the award of the Facilitation Council in accordance with law and, subject to the limitation prescribed in law to challenge the award. The judgment and order dated 23.05.2008 passed by this Court has become final between the parties. Thereafter, objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed on 16.09.2008, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the objections. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it was stated by the Appellant that the copy of the undated award sent by the Council for the U.P. Industrial Facilitation Council, Kanpur, through covering letter dated 07.01.2008 was received on 11.01.2008. After receiving the award, the papers were not placed before the Secretary by the employees of the Mandi Samiti due to ignorance of law and when it was placed before the Secretary after obtaining necessary sanction and as per legal advice the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6797 of 2008 before the Allahabad High Court on 29.01.2008, which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.05.2008. After dismissal of the above writ petition, legal advise was sought from its counsel practising in the Supreme Court, who vide opinion dated 28.01.2008 advised the Appellant to file objections under Section 34 of the Act. After obtaining proper sanction from the Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, objections under Section 34 of the Act is being filed and the delay had occurred due to ignorance of law and in obtaining sanction, etc. from the concerned higher authorities of the Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and it is not intentional. Hence, a prayer was made that the delay in filing the objections be condoned.;