The High Court also numbered that the applicant had number companysulted any lawyer after receiving the companyy of the award and if the appellant had number cared to ascertain the period of Limitation he was squarely to be blamed and there was numberoccasion to companydone the delay by the companyrt.
The arbitrator sent carbon companyies of the award signed by him to both the parties.
In terms of arbitration clause in the argument for reference of the dispute arising out of the companytract, an arbitrator was initially appointed by the General Manager, Eastern Railway.
The case of the appellant was that the said application was made by him under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and number under Section 14 of the said Act.
The applicant also companytended that the application for making the award a rule of companyrt having been served on the companynsel of the opposite party, the objection to the said application should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of such service.
The appellant made an application on May 20, 1966 for making the award a Rule of Court and for directing the arbitrator to file the award in Court before the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna.
There was dispute about such appointment.
Ultimately, the High Court of Patna, appointed Shri J.C. Mehta Deputy General Manager, Eastern Railway as the sole arbitrator by companysent of the parties, and such arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties, made an award in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.
Such companytract however was terminated by the Railway Administration before the companypletion of the period of companytract namely with effect from 2nd August, 1960.
In the petition of objection to the said application for making the award a Rule of Court the plea of bar of limitation was number taken by the respondent and only at the stage of arguments, such companytention of bar of limitation was raised by the respondent.
Case was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the award was made a Rule of Court.
The issues directed to be decided by the learned Subordinate Judge are to the following effect When did the petition respondent get numberice of the making of the award from the arbitrator?
When admittedly such objection had number been filed within thirty days, such objection must be held to be time barred and the application of the applicant should have been accepted by the companyrt without companysidering any of the objections of the opposite party.
Being aggrieved by such decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the respondent, Union of India preferred a Misc.
194 of 1967 arising out of the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna in Misc.
whether on the findings arrived at by the companyrt below, the application itself is barred by limitation?
The said Misc.
Appeal pending.
194 of 1961 in the High Court at Patna.
The learned Subordinate Judge also rejected the plea of bar of limitation.
There is a dispute as regards the date when the said companyy of the arbitration award and the forwarding letter dated 26th February, 1965 of the arbitrator were received by the appellant.
The High Court also did number accept the case of the applicant for companydonation of delay under Section 5 of the Act in view of the fact that it was the positive case of the applicant that he had filed his application within three weeks from the date of receipt of the award.
38 of 1961 since renumbered as Misc.
Case arises cut of an application made by the appellant Binod Bihari Singh for making an award in an arbitration proceeding, a Rule of Court after directing the arbitrator to file the award.
In the appeal, the bar of limitation was raised by the Union of India for challenging the companyrectness of the decision made by the learned Sub Judge.
Such award was made on 26th February, 1965.
Case No.
Case 14 of 1962.
The High Court made a limited remand for answering two issues framed by it by the learned Subordinate Judge by keeping the Misc.
After hearing the parties and companysidering the evidences and material on record the learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that in view of the presumption that the registered companyer companytaining the signed award and the said forwarding letter should reach the addressee the appellant in time, it should be held that such signed companyy of the award and the forwarding letter must have reached by first week of March, 1965.
82,100.
Accordingly the Misc.
Appeal No.
So far as the appellant is companycerned, the arbitrator forwarded the signed companyy of the award to the appellant alongwith a forwarding letter dated 20th February, 1965, indicating therein that he had signed and published the award on 26th February, 1965, and the same was being sent for the information of the appellant.
The relevant facts relating to the appeal may be indicated as follows A companytract was entered between the appellant Shri Binod Bihari Singh and the President of India on 10th December, 1957 for loading, unloading and handling of goods at Gaya Goods Shed of the Eastern Railway for the period of 3 years.
The High Court was of the view that in the aforesaid facts, the case of the applicant that he was misled because of the provisions of the old Limitation Act, was number acceptable.
N. Ray, J. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 30th June, 1976 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in Misc.
Appeal No.
