TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to a decree passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 when no objections are filed under Sections 30 and 33 of that Act; (ii) whether the delay in filing the objection application could be condoned and the decree set aside on showing sufficient cause.
Issue (i): Whether Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to a decree passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 when no objections are filed under Sections 30 and 33 of that Act.
Analysis: Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Act, and Section 141 of the Code extends the procedural framework of the Code to civil proceedings as far as applicable. In proceedings for making an award the rule of the Court, there is no statutory exclusion of Order IX. The Court held that before pronouncing judgment under Section 17, the Court must consider whether the award should be modified or remitted under Sections 15 and 16, and the resulting decree, where the objecting party is absent or has not filed objections, is in substance an ex parte decree for that party. The absence of the labels plaintiff and defendant does not exclude the operation of Order IX where the procedural provisions of the Code are otherwise attracted.
Conclusion: Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable, and the decree could be treated as ex parte for the objecting party.
Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the objection application could be condoned and the decree set aside on showing sufficient cause.
Analysis: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits extension of time on sufficient cause, and Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation period for objections to an award. The Court found that the papers were handed over to counsel within time, the delay in preparing and tendering the objections was attributable to the advocate, and the delay was only about 12 to 13 days. In these circumstances, sufficient cause was established for condonation. Once the delay was condoned, the decree passed on the basis of the award ought to have been set aside.
Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned and the decree was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the delay in filing objections was condoned, and the judgment and decree passed on the award were annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable to arbitration proceedings, a decree passed on an award without objections filed within time may be treated as ex parte for the objecting party, and delay in filing objections can be condoned on showing sufficient cause.
TaxTMI 
