FAO No.2928 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.2928 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20.4.2010 **** M/s Lajpat Agro Private Limited, Karyam, District Nawanshahar . . . . Appellant VS. Punjab State Civil Supply Corporation and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order dated 11.8.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby objection filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Arbitral Award dated 30.8.2004 has been dismissed on the ground that they are belated. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award was announced on 30.8.2004, which was received on 1.9.2004 and the objections though were filed after the expiry of 90 days but within the extended period of 30 days as per Section 34(3) of the Act. For the purpose of condonation of delay, reason was assigned that the mother of Amit Kumar Sareen, Director, through whom the application was filed was seriously ill whom he had to take to Chandigarh for FAO No.2928 of 2008 (O&M) -2- treatment. The application was supported by an affidavit, but the same was not allowed by the learned Court below and as such, the objections were dismissed on the ground of delay. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Asha Sareen, one of the Directors of the company was detected Breast Cancer and having her treatment from Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and PGI, Chandigarh. Due to this ailment, she had to undergo three cycles of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with 5 Fluorourracil Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide (FAC) and had also undergone a modified radical mastectomy on 2.12.2004 followed by 3 more cycles of FAC for the said purpose. Abovesaid Asha Sareen, who was also the Director of the company, had to visit Chandigarh in order to take second opinion. Learned Court below while dismissing the application held that the Director, who had appeared as a witness, has stated that his mother was taking treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, whereas, medical report stated that she had taken treatment from CMC, Ludhiana. This was one of the reasons for disbelieving the witness in respect of the reason assigned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that even if Smt. Asha Sareen, who was one of the Directors, was unwell due to alleged ailment of cancer, the other Directors could have filed the appeal. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire family was mentally upset and was involved in the treatment of Smt. Asha Sareen and in that process, they could not file objections within 90 days, but the same had been filed within 30 days thereafter. FAO No.2928 of 2008 (O&M) -3- I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. It is not disputed that Smt. Asha Sareen was suffering from left breast cancer and was undergoing treatment both from CMC Ludhiana and PGI Chandigarh. The only reason that has been assigned by the learned Court below is that in the statement of PW1 she was taking treatment from PGI Chandigarh, whereas the Court below had found that she was taking treatment from CMC Ludhiana as well. In any case, it is now well settled that a meritorious matter cannot be thrown out only on the ground of limitation. The reason, which has been assigned by the appellant is found to be sufficient by this Court, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar to decide the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar on 10.5.2010. Since, the matter is of 1991, the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, is directed to decide the dispute, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 20.4.2010 JUDGE Vivek