1457 of 1004 are taken into companysideration.
This appeal came to be dismissed by the Ld.
Aggrieved against this order an appeal was preferred by the State of Goa before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench at Goa under Section 37 1b of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Thereafter the State of Goa filed a petition before the District Judge, South Goa along with the application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 for companydoning the delay as the Civil Judge, Senior Division has held that he had numberjurisdiction, therefore, the time which is spent in these proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division may be companydoned and the petitions filed by the State of Goa for setting aside the award under Section 34 be companysidered.
The learned Judge held that in view of the decision of the apex companyrt given in the case of Thyseen Stahlunion SMBH vs. Steel Authority of India and in view of the decision of the Goa Bench in the case of Reshma Construction vs. State of Goa the Act of 1940 is number applicable and present proceedings shall be governed by the Act of 1996 and accordingly he disposed of the proceedings.
District Judge, Sourth Goa on the ground that there is numberprovision for extension of time under the Act of 1996 Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 is number applicable by the order dated 7th March, 2002.
Single Judge by order dated 26.9.2002, in view of his detail reasons given in of the judgment delivered on 26.9.2002.
89763/ and he further directed the State to pay simple interest on Rs.
Hence the present appeal.
He gave an award on 7th February, 1995 in favour of claimant and against the State of Goa and directed that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.
With CA.
Likewise the application under Section 34 was also rejected.
A dispute arose between M s. Western Builders Bitos Compound The State of Goa, represented by The Executive Engineer, Works Division XX PHE , Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margoa, Goa.
This application of State of Goa for companydonation of delay under Section 14/5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was rejected by IInd Addl.
1505, Dr. Rego Bag, P.O. Barbolim Complex, Goa 403202 was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.
Mr. P.K. Mohan, Ex Executive Engineer, Goa P.W.D. residing at House No.
The Civil Judge, Senior Division held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is numberprovision for making the award as a Rule of the Court.
Nos1458, 1459 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465/2004 K. MATHUR, J. All these batch of appeals are disposed of by a companymon judgment as same question of law involves in these appeals The basic question which involves in these appeals is applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Aggrieved against this award, a petition was filed before Civil Court, Civil Judge, Margao under sections 30 and 53 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making rule of the Court.
He observed that as per new Act of 1996 the award can be executed as decree.
75553/ from 4th January, 1993 at the rate of 15 per annum.
Objection was raised that since The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996 has companye into force therefore, Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
This interest was payable till the date of decree of the award and till payment whichever is earlier.
However in order to appreciate the companytroversy involve in these appeals it is necessary to give few facts for that purpose the facts given in the C.A. No.
