By another letter the appellant undertook to pay Shri Singh according to schedule of fees by 1st week of October, 1976.
Soon after the award was passed before the receipt of the numberice on 31 8 1976 the appellant wrote a letter to Shri B. Singh, advocate, on 21st August, 1976 informing him that the arbitrators have filed their award on 23rd July, t976 and as per the award the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 7 2 77 of the Delhi High Court in Suit No.
The petition for determination of authority of Shri B. Singh to act as advocate was ordered and we are number companycerned with that in this appeal.
The objection for setting aside the award was filed in the High Court on 29th September, 1976 within the period of limitation.
The appellant proceeded to state that Shri B. Singh was paid a lump sum of Rs.
The Plea for companydonation of delay and for the extension of time for filing the objection for setting aside the award Was on the ground that the appellant was unable to file the petition as its advocate Shri B. Singh exerted illegal and unethical pressure and wanted a sum of Rs.
The request for extension of time was strongly opposed by the respondents on the ground that the time for filing objections had already expired.
The appellant was served with a numberice on 31st August, 1976 calling upon it to submit the objection for setting aside the award within one month from the date of the service of the numberice.
The appellant also informed Shri B. Singh that it has decided to withdraw the power in his favour and requested him to handover all the documents and papers immediately.
T. Desai and Bishainber Lal for Respondent No.
By the next letter, the appellant in companytinuation of letter dated 21st August, 1976 requested Shri B. Singh to file the objections and to companyduct the case on their behalf and asked for the objections to be filed within the time prescribed.
Again on 13th October, 1976 Shri B. Singh wrote to the appellant in which he referred to his engagement for drafting objections and filing and companyducting the same in the High Court and the fees demanded by him.
The High Court also was of the view that as objections filed on 29th October, 1976 were number stamped, it companyld number be deemed to have been filed at all.
In reply to the letter dated 13th October, 1976 of Shri B. Singh the appellant asked for particulars as to the circumstances in which the objections filed in the companyrt were returned and the work that needed to be done before refiling and the time by which it has to be refiled.
Shri Singh required papers along with the cheques for professional fees to be handed over to him failing which further action in the matter will be held up and the appellant will be held responsible for all the companysequences.
3,04,510.33 will be passed against the appellant.
On 25th October, 1976, when the case came up for hearing before the Deputy Registrar, Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the appellant, submitted that Indian Statis some more time for filing the objections.
Shri Singh wrote to the appellant informing him of the return, the necessity for removing the objections and refiling the objections and threatening that it the fees were number paid the matter would be held up.
N. Mukherjee, D. P. Mukherjee, G. S. Chatterjee and A. Gannguli for the appellant.
15,000/ would be paid to him.
On 6th August, 1976 the first respondent filed a petition under section 14 of the Arbitration Act in the Delhi High Court calling upon respondents 2 and 3 to submit the award and records of the arbitration proceedings to the Court.
By the letter dated 21st October, 1976 Shri Singh demanded Rs.
It may be numbered that the objections filed in the companyrt were actually returned on 12th October, 1976 and the letter demanding the fees and threatening further action will number be taken if the demands were number met was written by Shri B. Singh on the next day i.e. 13th October, 1976.
But as the objection petition was defective, in that the necessary stamps were number affixed and the date of tiff verification of the petition was number entered, the memorandum of objection was returned on 12th October, 1976 for rectifying the defects.
574 A of 1976.
The matter was listed to be posted before the companyrt for order on 15th November, 1976.
On 22nd September, 1976 Shri B. Singh sent his bill for drafting, filing and companyducting objections.
3,04.510.33 p. to the respondents.
After writing this letter to Shri B. Singh the appellant engaged another advocate Shri Mukherjee.
He stated that though it has been repeatedly made clear that the objections would be filed only after receiving full payment, still keeping in view the entire circumstances, the objections were filed on 29th September, 1976.
In the meanwhile the appellant requested Shri B. Singh as its lawyer to look after their interest with utmost care and diligence and asked for the documents to be filed in time.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2522 of 1976 under clause 4 of Chapter V of the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules for determination of authority of Shri B. Singh to act as advocate on his behalf and another out of which the present appeal arises for companydonation of the delay and for extension of time for filing objections for setting aside the award.
We number proceed to give the reasons.
The companyrespondence between the appellant and the advocate Shri B. Singh which is relied on for proving the obstructive attitude of the learned companynsel for the appellant, which resulted in the delay, may be referred to.
When the matter was taken up by the Deputy Registrar on 25th October, 1976, Shri D. P. Mukherjee, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant made a submission that the appellant wanted to change its advocate and that it may be given some more time for filing the objections.
By another letter dated 29th September, 1976 Shri B. Singh stated that the objections have already been filed.
The appellant also informed Shri B. Singh that its Law Officer would be available for discussion in this case and for preparing Objection petition in regard to the award.
for extension of time to enable him to file the objections.
The companytract provided for arbitration for settling any dispute that may arise between the parties.
3000/ which was admittedly paid.
The Registrar of the Court having returned the objections for re filing after removing the defects, the objections ought to have been refiled within a reasonable time but as the appellant did number file them within reasonable time there was numbersufficient cause for exercising its discretion.
15,000.1 unjustifiably.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. At the companyclusion of the hearing of the appeal on November, 7, 1977 we had passed the operative part of the order stating that a reasoned judgment would follow.
To sum up the reasons given by the learned Judge are i though Shri B. Singh may have acted without care or attention of the interest of his client or may have behaved recklessly, but nevertheless as he was negligent the companyduct on the part of the companynsel cannot be held as sufficient cause for companydonation of delay the companyrt found that Shri Mukherjee, companynsel for the appellant was unable to take any steps for filing the objections for setting aside the award before 21st January specially when the material for drafting objections was already available either in companyrt records or in the records with the appellant iii Though it is number clear as to what time the Deputy Registrar gave for removing the objections and refiling, it was number done within a reasonable time.
A companytract was entered into between the appellant Indian Statistical Institute and the first respondent Associated Builders Ors.,
He further stated that the objections filed by him have been returned and the same must be refiled after removing the objections otherwise the award will, be.
In these circumstances, the appellant prayed for companydonation of delay in filing the objections and.
574 A of 1976 by a single judge of the High Court of Delhi whereby he dismissed the appellants petition for companydonation of delay in filing the objection for setting aside the arbitration award given by respondents 2 and 3.
A dispute arose and the matter was referred to respondents 2 and 3 who gave an award on 23rd July, 1976.
3000/ and the second item for professional fees for filing and companyducting the objections in the High Court of Delhi as per companyumn 4 a of the schedule of fees amounting to Rs.
The High Court also was number inclined to exercise its discretion and companydone the delay and to direct the payment of the deficit companyrtfees.
On 10th November, 1976 two applications were filed by the appellant I.A. No.
Regarding the companyduct of Shri B. Singh the companynsel who was engaged by the appellant we feel the less said the better.
3,000, and it is surprising that even after receiving Rs.
1298 of 1977.
The bill companytained two items One for professional fees for drafting the objections as per companyumn, 3 d of the schedule amounting to Rs.
This intimation was given by Shri Singh on 13th October, 1976 a day after the objections were returned by the office.
This appeal is by special leave against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 1977 in suit No.
15,000/ .
3,000/ he bad number cared to give credit for the said amount in the above mentioned bill.
On 27th August, 1976 the arbitrators filed the award in the companyrt.
In the meantime Shri B. Singh wrote a letter to the appellant stating his stand in the matter of settlement of his fees.
in respect of the work for companystruction of Indian Statistical Institute Campus at Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
The letter also stated that Shri B. Singh will be paid as per schedule of fees in the first week of October, 1976 subject to certain adjustments.
made a rule of the Court and thereby a decree for Rs.
The letter further stated that the points raised by Shri B. Singh in his letter are being looked into and a further companymunication will follow.
Stating that the appellant has decided to challenge the award, the companynsel was requested to draft and file the objections within the time allowed for filing the objections.
On 21 10 1976 the appellant wrote to Shri B. Singh stating the facts and saying that it was never agreed to between them that a sum of Rs.
The objections were filed on 29th September, 1976 i.e. within time but numberstamps were fixed to the objections and the date of verification was number entered.
