Court allows objections under Section 34 despite delay.

The court allowed the objections (OMP 367/01) to be entertained under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that there was sufficient cause for entertaining the objections filed on 29th October 2001, despite the delay in re-filing, and granted the applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under sections 34(3) and 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Entertaining objections under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
3. Legality of objections under OMP 367/01.
4. Condonation of delay in re-filing the objections.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Objector filed I.A. 10715/01 under sections 34(3) and 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award dated 30th June 2001. The Objector sought to entertain objections under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 due to being prevented from filing objections within the prescribed period. Another application, I.A.11576/01, was filed to explain the circumstances under which the Objector believed the award was governed by the Act of 1940 and not the Act of 1996.

Issue 2:
The Non-Objector/claimant did not file a reply to the applications. The court considered the history of the case, including the dismissal of an application under section 14 of the Act of 1940 and subsequent appeals, to determine the maintainability of the objections under OMP 367/01. The court found that previous orders did not prevent the Objector from seeking to entertain objections under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

Issue 3:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the legality of objections under OMP 367/01. The Objector's counsel argued that there was sufficient cause for entertaining the objections, even though they were filed beyond the prescribed period. The court examined previous cases to establish the principle that re-filing objections after removing defects relates back to the original presentation.

Issue 4:
The court considered the question of condonation of delay in re-filing the objections. Citing precedents, the court found that the defects pointed out by the Registry were not substantial enough to render the objections invalid. The court concluded that there was sufficient cause for entertaining the objections filed on 29th October 2001, despite the delay, and allowed the applications accordingly.

In conclusion, the court allowed the objections (OMP 367/01) to be entertained under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, considering the circumstances and legal principles discussed in the judgment.

---