HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT , Nanu Ram Goyal, Engineer & Contractor, was given a work for construction of 100 bedded hospital at Sonepat on 19th November, 1981. The work was to be completed within 24 months i.e. by 18th November, 1983 but the work was not completed even upto 1986. As per the contractor, the delay in completion of the work occurred due to fault of the petitioners herein as they failed to fulfil the salient obligations imposed upon them under the contract. According to the petitioners, the delay occurred on account of the fault on the part of the contractor, who sought extension of time in completion of the work.
(2.) SINCE disputes arose between the parties, the Superintending Engineer, Karnal, was appointed as an Arbitrator on 29th January, 1988, the said Arbitrator entered upon the reference but the respondent herein filed a petition under Sections 8, 11, 14 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Civil Court at Chandigarh to revoke the authority of the Arbitrator. For the reasons mentioned in the detailed order, the learned Trial Court allowed such application on January 5, 1990. The Arbitrator was removed and fresh appointment of the Arbitrator was ordered. A revision petition against the said order bearing Civil Revision No. 845 of 1990 was preferred by the petitioners herein which came up for hearing before this Court on 14th November, 1990. The revision was dismissed but at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to appoint an independent Arbitrator, Justice R.N. Mittal, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has given the Award on 10th April, 1992. The said award was filed before this Court. The matter was taken up on 27th May, 1992, when notice was ordered to be issued to the learned counsel for the parties alongwith a copy of the award for July 14, 1992. On July 14, 1992, the matter was adjourned to July 28, 1992 on which date, the petitioners filed Objections dated June 19, 1992 against the award of the Arbitrator.
(3.) THE petitioners filed the Objections dated June 19, 1992 against the award of the Arbitrator. The reply dated July 17, 1992 was filed by the contractor on July 28, 1992 itself. The petitioners also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was registered as CM No. 7665-CII of 1992 to seek condonation of delay in filing of the objections on the ground that the petitioners have not received any notice alongwith award and therefore, the limitation cannot be said to have started. It was pointed out that the objections were prepared to the award and delivered in the office of the Advocate General, Haryana on June 19, 1992 but since no notice was received, the same could not be filed. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on January 5, 1993 :- "1. Whether the objections are barred by time ? OPR 2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections raised in the objection petition ? OPO. 3. Relief". ;