FAO No. 1334 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1334 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2011 M/s Mouli Ram Cotton Ginning Pressing & General Mills, Budhlada .. Appellant v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Fedration Ltd. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `the Act'), were dismissed as time-barred. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Shimla Devi, who is one of the partners of the firm, was never served with the award passed by the Arbitrator. In the absence of service of award on her, she had no opportunity to file objections against the same. Limitation for filing the objections will start only from the date of service of award on her. She came to know only when a notice was served upon her in execution proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The award in the present case was announced by the Arbitrator on 20.4.2001. The objections were filed in the court on 6.11.2001. The limitation for filing the objections as provided for under Section 34(3) of the Act is three months. However, delay upto the extent of 30 days could be condoned. FAO No. 1334 of 2011 [2] As far as service of award on the firm or its partners is concerned, in support of her case, Shimla Devi authorised one Sanjeev Kumar to appear as a witness on her behalf as OW-1, who otherwise was not working with the firm in any capacity. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Amrit Pal, one of the partners of the firm, was residing in the factory premises upto December, 2001. As per the report of postal authorities, a registered cover containing the award was sent to the firm at the address where the factory was situated, where one of the partners admittedly resided upto December, 2001 but the same was received back with the report of refusal. There was another report of the Postman regarding the firm being closed. Though the Postman was summoned by the appellant, but without getting his statement recorded, he was left over. There was no other evidence led by the appellant that none of the partners was ever served with the award of the Arbitrator. Even before the Arbitrator, the conduct of the parties was similar as they had refused to receive notices issued by the Arbitrator. Thereafter, the notice had to be published. On 28.1.1997, Amrit Pal, one of the partners, had appeared before the Arbitrator. Meaning thereby, one of the partners had knowledge about the pendency of the arbitration proceedings as well. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the objections filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.3.2011 mk