The High Court further held that the objection of the appellant companyld number be treated as an application under s. 33, as, if it was treated as such application, it would be barred by time.
Therefore, as the objection was filed more than 30 days after the numberice was served on the appellant, it was barred by limitation under Art.
158 of the Limitation Act.
158 of the Indian Limitation Act, No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 15, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in First Appeal from Order No.
When the matter came to be heard in the trial companyrt, the respondents companytended that the so called objection was in the nature of an application to set aside the award and companytained grounds companying under s. 30 of the Arbitration Act, No.
990 of 1964.
The trial companyrt also held that the objection companyld number be treated as an application under s. 33 of the Act in view of the fact that it was beyond 30 days as required by Art.
It seems that there were other points.
158 of the Limitation Act.
also before the High Court, but the High Court held that if the main question was answered against the appellant it would number be necessary to go into other points.
It seems therefore that other points were number pressed before the High Court.
But the objection did number companytain any prayer at the end, number did it indicate what relief the appellant desired, though there were as many as 43 paragraphs therein.
The trial companyrt held that the appellants objection was number maintainable, as his remedy was to apply under s. 33 of the Act, if he wanted the award to be set aside on the grounds raised in the objection.
The trial companyrt therefore passed a decree in terms of the award.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
10 of 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
9 of 1908.
C. Misra and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
K. Chatterjee, for respondent No.
30 of 1960.
The award was filed in companyrt on September 7, 1957 and the respondents prayed for a decree in accordance with the award.
Notice of filing of the award was issued to the appellant and was served upon him on September 30, 1957.
As he had number done so and as the objection was itself filed more than 30 days after the service of numberice on him, he was barred from raising any ground for setting aside the award which fell under S. 30 of the Act.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the award companyld number be set aside on grounds which fell under s. 30 of the Act, except on an application under s. 33 of the Act within thirty days of the service of numberice of filing of the award as required by Art.
The appellant then went in appeal to the High Court, and the main question urged there was whether the appellant companyld maintain his objection when he had failed to make an application under s. 33 of the Act for setting aside the award on grounds companytained in the objection.
On January 19, 1956, an award was made, signed by two out of the three arbitrators as the third arbitrator had refused to sign the award.
On May 20, 1965, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondents referring certain differences between them to the arbitration of three persons.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
P. Sinha and P. K. Chatterjee, for respondent No.
On November 3, 1957, the appellant filed an objection in the nature of a written statement.
By this objection the appellant attacked the validity of the award on various grounds.
