- (1.) FROM the office notes and the postal acknowledgment, it appears that Mr. Nandlal Khattwani, the sole proprietor of the respondent had received notice on 30/12/2010.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the service is accepted as valid. It is not known why the office did not place this case for acceptance of service of notice for such a long time. Be that as it may. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. This arbitration appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 7th June 2008, passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 11/2005, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad dismissing the miscellaneous case on the ground that it is barred by time. From the impugned judgment itself it appears that the arbitral award was received in the office of the appellant on 07/01/2004 and the miscellaneous case was filed on 01/05/2005, i.e. after about one year and three months whereas at best the time to file the miscellaneous case was up to 120 days, i.e. up to about 07/04/2004. Thus, there was delay of about nine months in filing the miscellaneous case. It also appears from para 6 of the impugned judgment that the miscellaneous case was already admitted. In that situation, it was to be presumed that the delay was condoned while admitting the miscellaneous case. Moreover, it appears that the explanations offered on behalf of the appellant for filing the miscellaneous case beyond time, were not considered by the learned Subordinate Judge and the miscellaneous case was dismissed only on the ground that it was beyond time. In this circumstances, this Court has left with no option than to set aside the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad for passing orders on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties as expeditiously as possible as the matter has already been delayed. With these observations and directions, this arbitration appeal stands allowed. Let the order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the appellant.;