TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses delay condensation application, upholds respondent's plea. Timely filings crucial.</h1> <h3>Union of India (UOI) Versus Wishwa Mittar Bajaj and Sons and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed the application for condensation of delay and allowed the respondent's application, dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner ... - Issues Involved:1. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Limitation period for filing objections.3. Condensation of delay under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.4. Calculation of limitation period.5. Accountability and efficiency in government departments.Detailed Analysis:1. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996:The petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the arbitration award dated 25th July, 2005. The objections were filed on 28th November, 2005, beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 34(3) for condensation of delay.2. Limitation period for filing objections:The period for filing objections to an arbitration award is three months from the date of receipt of the award, as stipulated by Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was received by the Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone, on 28th July, 2005. Therefore, the three-month period expired on 27th October, 2005.3. Condensation of delay under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996:The petitioner sought condensation of delay for a further period of 30 days, arguing that the objections were filed within this extended period, considering 27th November, 2005, was a Sunday. However, the statute mandates that the court cannot entertain an application beyond the additional 30 days. The objections filed on 28th November, 2005, were beyond this permissible period.4. Calculation of limitation period:The court examined the calculation of the limitation period, noting that the three months should be construed as calendar months. The period of three months from 28th July, 2005, ended on 27th October, 2005. The additional 30 days expired on 26th November, 2005. Therefore, the objections filed on 28th November, 2005, were beyond the allowable period.5. Accountability and efficiency in government departments:The court highlighted the casual approach of the petitioner in handling the matter, noting delays at various stages without proper justification. The court emphasized the need for accountability and efficiency in government departments to avoid such delays, which result in financial liabilities and inefficiency.Conclusion:The court dismissed the application for condensation of delay (I.A. No. 9821/2005) and allowed the respondent's application (I.A. No. 1759/2006), dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner as they were beyond the condonable period. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the need for accountability in government functions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
