DEMOCRATIC BUILDERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for and on behalf of the respondents under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the objections to the award dated December 7, .1990 by the sole arbitrator Shri N. H. Chandwani which was filed before the Court on May 28, 1991.

(2.) It would be just and proper to examine the facts of the present case which led to the present application in order to fully and properly appreciate the points involved herein. Shri N. H. Chandwani was appointed as the sole arbitrator in the present case. He filed the award dated December 7, 1990 before the Registrar of this Court on May 28, 1991. The Registrar of this Court thereafter issued notices to both the parties with regard to the filing of the award. The petitioner was served with said notice on June 28, 1991. The respondent were served with the same on July 8,1991. The respondent were thus required to file objections, if any, against the aforesaid award within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. Thus, if the period of limitation is computed from the said date the respondent should have filed their objections by August 7, 1991. However, the respondent for the best reasons known to them filed their objections on August 28, 1991. It implies thereby that the said objections were filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence arose the necessity for the presentation of the present application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring the said objections against the award alluded to above.

(3.) It is a well-established principle of law that a duty has been cast on the shoulders of the Court to construe the provisions of the Limitation Act strictly and the delay, if any, can be condoned only in those discerning few cases wherein the applicant is in a position to explain the delay of each and every day and where he is in a position to show that the delay which occurred was beyond his control and power such as vis major. I am supported in my above view by the observations of Mr. Justice S. C. Ghose, J. as reported in Soorajmull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre and Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381 (para 15)........