FAO No.3896 of 2004 - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.3896 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: 10.02.2009 **** Rakesh Kumar . . . . Appellant VS. Union of India and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Amritsar, dated 12.4.2004, vide which objections filed by the appellant, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’), were dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned award was passed ex parte on 30.9.2002. The appellant came to know about the award through a letter dated 12.5.2003 received from the Divisional Superintending Engineer (C) Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. Thereafter he obtained a copy of the award from the arbitrator on 19.5.2003 and filed his objections under Section 34 of the Act on 29.5.2003. It is contended that if the limitation is to be counted from the date of FAO No.3896 of 2004 - 2 – receipt of the copy of the award from 19.5.2003, then objections filed under Section 34 of the Act were within limitation. The objections, however, were dismissed by the learned court below on the ground that the copy of the award dated 30.9.2002 was sent to the appellant through Registered Post on 19.12.2002 at his address, which was returned by the Postal Authorities with a remark that “the addressee was not available despite number of visits”. Therefore, the limitation was to start from the said date. Mr.B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per Section 34 (3)of the Act, the limitation period is to be counted for the purpose of filing objections to the award of the arbitrator from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. He further submitted that since the arbitral award was never received through Post as it is an admitted fact and that the appellant had himself obtained a copy on 19.5.2003, the limitation has to start from the date of getting the copy form the arbitrator on 19.5.2003. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors” 2005(3) JT 426 to contend that the limitation for filing objections is to start from the date of the receipt of the arbitral award by the party which was held to be a person directly connected with and involved in the proceedings before the arbitrator and non else. On the other hand, Mr.Puneet Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the earlier two letters were despatched on the given address of the appellant and were received by him, therefore, it could not be imagined that the FAO No.3896 of 2004 - 3 – arbitral award sent through Registered Post on 9.12.2002 was not received by the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after giving my thoughtful consideration to their respective contentions, I am of the view, that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar, deserves to be set aside because findings has been recorded by the learned Court that the letter sent through registered post, dated 9.5.2002, containing arbitral award, was not received by the appellant and was returned by the postal authorities to the arbitrator with remarks that “the addressee was not available despite number of visits”. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that appellant had not received the arbitral award through post and had obtained a copy of the award on 19.5.23003 and filed objections on 29.5.2003, which in my opinion as per definition of Section 34(3) of the Act, is within limitation. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Judge, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Amritsar to decide the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act, in accordance with law. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 10, 2009 JUDGE vivek