MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Commercial Court, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the Commercial Court') by which objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') and application 34(3) of the Act of 1996 and application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act have been dismissed.
(2.) Facts of the case are that an award was passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. A. P. Choudhary on 23.06.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant, M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited filed an application before this Court purporting to be an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. As per the respondents, this application was converted into a civil miscellaneous appeal on the request of the appellant on 06.10.2006. The matter remained pending before this Court for as long as 2 years and finally, Single Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.02.2008 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, however, with liberty to the appellant to file the objections before the District Judge having jurisdiction. It was thereafter that the appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 on 05.03.2008 before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu along with application under Section 14 of the Limitation for condonation of delay. Thereafter, application under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 was also filed by the appellant on 01.02.2014. Upon enforcement of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, the matter was transferred to the Commercial Court, Jhunjhunu, which Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2016 dismissed the objections raised by the appellant as time barred.
(3.) On hearing learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that undisputed facts are that the appellant instead of filing objection under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the Principal Civil Court, i.e. the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, directly filed such objections before this Court. Such petition was registered as an appeal which was finally dismissed as not maintainable. The objections that were subsequently filed before the Court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu were accompanied by an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceedings relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. As per Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1996, the appellant was required to file objections before the principal civil court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of arbitral award. However, proviso thereto stipulates for condonation of delay up to 30 days in filing of such objections. But the appellant instead of filing such objections before the principal civil court, i.e. Court of District Judge, pursued such remedy by filing objections directly before this Court. Clearly, the appellant had taken steps to challenge the correctness of award by filing objections within reasonable time, but not before the proper forum. Therefore, provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation, in our considered view, would be attracted in the present case.;