* 1 * W.P. 5583.2003 11.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5583 OF 2003 Shri D.B. Gosavi, ] Official Liquidator, ] Tasgaon Palus Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ] Petitioner Limited, Turuchi, Tal. Tasgaon, ] Dist. Sangli. ] Vs. 1. M/s Nandkumar Constructions ] A registered partnership firm having ] their office at Flat No. 1, ] Meera Co­op. Hsg. Society, ] Tarabai Park, Kolhapur ] Respondents ] 2. Ghansham Chabade ] Age : 50 years, Occ.: Business ] R/o : Flat No.1, ] Meera Co­op. Hsg. Society, ] Tarabai Park, Kolhapur ] * * * * Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amol P. Mhatre, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11th October, 2010. * 2 * W.P. 5583.2003 11.10.2010 P.C. 1. This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenges the order dated 26th April 1999 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli rejecting the petitioner’s application at Exhibit 64 for condonation of delay in filing objections to Arbitrator’s award. The brief facts giving rise to the application are as follows : . The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,51,28,021/­ towards damages from the respondents, who inturn made counter claim of Rs.1,45,87,697/­. On the application of the respondents, reference came to be made to the Arbitrator on 18th July 1996. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties, rejected the petitioner’s claim in its entirety and awarded a sum of Rs.15,44,186/­ to the respondents. He sent letter of information dated 12th April 1997 to the parties for declaring the award on 15th April 1997 and for obtaining copies of the award from him on payment of his legal remuneration. Though the respondents * 3 * W.P. 5583.2003 11.10.2010 obtained copy of their award, the petitioner neither paid the legal remuneration of the arbitrator, nor collected the copy of the award. Thereafter the arbitrator filed the award in the court on 29th April 1997 under the covering letter dated 26th April 1997. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that it did not receive the letter of information dated 12th April 1997 from the Arbitrator and as such could not collect copy of the award. However, admittedly after filing of the award in the Court, the petitioner and the respondents received notices (Exhibit 46) from the Court of filing of the award. It then after filing appearance in the court, filed application at Exhibit 46­A on 26th June, 1997 admitting receipt of notice of filing of the award in the court and praying for time to file its objections on the ground that it was required to obtain certified copies of the award. As per the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner applied for certified copy on 7th January 1999, which copy was received by him on 1st February 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that in the * 4 * W.P. 5583.2003 11.10.2010 circumstance, there can be delay of only 11 days in filing the objections to the award. During the course of the arguments, it was sought to be contended by the petitioner that it had in fact filed an application for certified copy on 14th June 1997 itself and the office of the District Court had made an endorsement on the application that though the award had been filed, the sealed packet containing the award had not yet been opened. Thereafter, on 18th December 1997 the petitioner withdrew the application for certified copy and also received back the amount deposited towards costs of the certified copy. Then, the petitioner filed second application on 7th January 1999. This shows that the petitioner was well aware of the award on 14th June 1997, when it filed the first application for certified copy. It was also obviously aware that the award was adverse to it since by the application at Exhibit­46­A it sought time to file objections to the award. Despite that, it kept quite until 7th January 1999 for which there is neither explanation pleaded nor offered. In the circumstance, the learned Judge was right in holding that * 5 * W.P. 5583.2003 11.10.2010 the petitioner has not made out any case whatsoever for condonation of delay in filing objections to the award. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents points out another circumstance of the case, which also goes clearly against the petitioner. He points out that the application at Exhibit 64 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay is no application in the eye of law because the same has been signed only by the Advocate for the petitioner. It neither bears the signature on behalf of the petitioner nor verification by him. Therefore, the application in fact could not have been considered on merits at all. In the circumstances, the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. The order does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota,J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota,J)