appellant had been served with a copy of the awards after the same were
passed by the Arbitrator or not. It appears from the record that original copy
of the postal receipts and acknowledgement cards signed by the appellant
acknowledging receipt of the awards had been produced before the learned
District Judge. The observation of the learned District Judge in paragraph 11
of the impugned order, in this regard, is quoted below:
“11. During the course of hearing, the claimant/O.P.
has submitted original copies of postal receipts and
acknowledgement cards duly signed by the petitioner for
receiving the awards in connection with Judl. Misc. Cases
No. 115/2012/165/2013, 116/2012/166/2013 and
118/2012/168/2013. In Judl. Misc. Case No. 4
115/2012/165/2013, the award dated 20.11.2010 in
connection with RPR/2009-10/04/ST-5 dated 31.1.2009
was sent to the petitioner on 20.11.2010 by Registered
Post A/D bearing No. RLAD A 6571 and the same was
duly received on 4.12.2010. In Judl. Misc. Case
NO.116/2012/166/2013, the award dated 20.11.2010 in
connection with RPR/2009-10/01/ST-5 dated 31.1.2009
was sent to the petitioner on 20.11.2010 by registered
post A/D bearing No.RLAD A 6569 and the same duly
signed and received by the petitioner. In Judl. Misc.
Case No.118/2012/168/2013 the award dated
20/11/2010 in connection with RPR/2009-10/03/ST-5
dated 31/1/2009 was sent to the petitioner on
20.11.2010 by registered post A/D bearing No. RLAD A
6570 and the same was duly received on 7.12.2010. In
Judl. Misc. Case No.117/2012/167/2013, the award dated
9.12.2010 with reference to RPR/2009-10/24/ST-5 dated
5.2.2009 was sent to the petitioner on 12.12.2010 by
Speed Post with POD bearing No. EE-907305148IN. All
the awards were sent to the correct address of the
petitioner. A certified copy of the Dispatch Register
along with Receipt and POD(or A/D card ) for sending
speed post is also filed by the respondent/OP.”
[5] In view of the above, the fact that all the four awards were
sent to the appellant by registered post with A/D, the presumption is that it
had been served unless such presumption is rebutted by the appellant.
Before the learned District Judge, the appellant only denied to have received
the copy of the award in all the four cases and submitted that the signatures
appearing in the A/D cards are not his signatures. Except denying the above
fact, the appellant did not take any further step either by filing an application
to send the handwriting appearing in the acknowledgment card to an expert
for opinion or by adducing evidence to prove his stand that he had not been
served with the copy of the award. As a matter of fact, no rebuttal evidence
was adduced by the appellant against the presumption available under the
law except denial receipt of the award from the Arbitrator.
[6] In course of hearing of the appeals, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the learned
District Judge to give an opportunity to the appellant to get the signatures
verified by an expert. We are unable to accept such contention of the
learned counsel considering the fact that no such effort was made by the
appellant when the matter was pending before the learned District Judge
and several years have passed in the meantime. Apart from the above, we
also compared the signatures appearing in the A/D cards with the signatures 5
of the appellant in the Vakalatnama. To our bare eyes we did not find much
of difference. We, therefore, find no justification either to set aside the
impugned order refusing to condone the delay or remitting the matter back
to the learned District Judge for giving another opportunity to the appellant
to substantiate his stand.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Arbitration Appeal(J2) No.1 of 2015
M/S Toijam Achouba Singh & Sons
V
The Union of India
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE L.K. MOHAPATRA
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO
Date of judgment :: 06.05.2016
Citation: AIR 2017 Manipur 8
These 4(four) appeals arise out of a common order dated
23.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Manipur East in 4(four)
Judicial Misc. Cases arising out of 4(four) Arbitration Execution cases.
[2] The appellant in all the four appeals is a Contractor registered
with the Indian Army. He was being entrusted with the work of supply of
firewood/Charcoal, Lime quick at Leimakhong for the period from 1.4.2009 to
31.3.2010 under a contract dated 31.1.2009. Similarly, he was also entrusted
with the work of supply of Egg, fish at the supply Depot for the period from
1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 under a separate contract dated 31.1.2009. Two other
contracts were also entered into between the parties for supply of egg at
different places for the same period as well as vegetables during the same
period. Dispute arose between the parties in respect of all the four contracts
and arbitration clause was invoked. The Arbitrator passed awards in respect 3
of the four contracts and the awards were passed against the present
appellant by the Arbitrator in respect of all the four contracts. The
respondents levied execution cases before the learned District Judge,
Manipur East in respect of the four awards passed in its favour and the
appellant was issued notice in the execution cases. After receipt of notice in
the execution cases, the appellant appeared before the learned District Judge
and filed four separate applications u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act praying for setting aside the award and four separate applications were
also filed u/s 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the applications u/s 34
of the Act. These four applications for condoning the delay were dismissed
by the learned District Judge in the impugned order and consequently the
said order has given rise to these four appeals.
[3] For the purpose of condonation of delay, it was contended
before the learned District Judge by the present appellant that he had no
knowledge of passing the award by the Arbitrator in all the four cases and
only after receiving summon in the four execution cases, he came to know
about the awards and therefore the delay in filing the application u/s 34 for
setting aside the award should be condoned. The respondent, on the other
hand, objected to the said prayer for condonation on the ground that copy of
the award in all the four cases had been sent to the appellant by the
Arbitrator by registered post with A/D and the appellant has signed all the
A/D acknowledging receipt of the awards and therefore the ground taken in
the application for condonation of delay is not correct.
[4] The sole question for consideration is as to whether the
appellant had been served with a copy of the awards after the same were
passed by the Arbitrator or not. It appears from the record that original copy
of the postal receipts and acknowledgement cards signed by the appellant
acknowledging receipt of the awards had been produced before the learned
District Judge. The observation of the learned District Judge in paragraph 11
of the impugned order, in this regard, is quoted below:
“11. During the course of hearing, the claimant/O.P.
has submitted original copies of postal receipts and
acknowledgement cards duly signed by the petitioner for
receiving the awards in connection with Judl. Misc. Cases
No. 115/2012/165/2013, 116/2012/166/2013 and
118/2012/168/2013. In Judl. Misc. Case No. 4
115/2012/165/2013, the award dated 20.11.2010 in
connection with RPR/2009-10/04/ST-5 dated 31.1.2009
was sent to the petitioner on 20.11.2010 by Registered
Post A/D bearing No. RLAD A 6571 and the same was
duly received on 4.12.2010. In Judl. Misc. Case
NO.116/2012/166/2013, the award dated 20.11.2010 in
connection with RPR/2009-10/01/ST-5 dated 31.1.2009
was sent to the petitioner on 20.11.2010 by registered
post A/D bearing No.RLAD A 6569 and the same duly
signed and received by the petitioner. In Judl. Misc.
Case No.118/2012/168/2013 the award dated
20/11/2010 in connection with RPR/2009-10/03/ST-5
dated 31/1/2009 was sent to the petitioner on
20.11.2010 by registered post A/D bearing No. RLAD A
6570 and the same was duly received on 7.12.2010. In
Judl. Misc. Case No.117/2012/167/2013, the award dated
9.12.2010 with reference to RPR/2009-10/24/ST-5 dated
5.2.2009 was sent to the petitioner on 12.12.2010 by
Speed Post with POD bearing No. EE-907305148IN. All
the awards were sent to the correct address of the
petitioner. A certified copy of the Dispatch Register
along with Receipt and POD(or A/D card ) for sending
speed post is also filed by the respondent/OP.”
[5] In view of the above, the fact that all the four awards were
sent to the appellant by registered post with A/D, the presumption is that it
had been served unless such presumption is rebutted by the appellant.
Before the learned District Judge, the appellant only denied to have received
the copy of the award in all the four cases and submitted that the signatures
appearing in the A/D cards are not his signatures. Except denying the above
fact, the appellant did not take any further step either by filing an application
to send the handwriting appearing in the acknowledgment card to an expert
for opinion or by adducing evidence to prove his stand that he had not been
served with the copy of the award. As a matter of fact, no rebuttal evidence
was adduced by the appellant against the presumption available under the
law except denial receipt of the award from the Arbitrator.
[6] In course of hearing of the appeals, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the learned
District Judge to give an opportunity to the appellant to get the signatures
verified by an expert. We are unable to accept such contention of the
learned counsel considering the fact that no such effort was made by the
appellant when the matter was pending before the learned District Judge
and several years have passed in the meantime. Apart from the above, we
also compared the signatures appearing in the A/D cards with the signatures 5
of the appellant in the Vakalatnama. To our bare eyes we did not find much
of difference. We, therefore, find no justification either to set aside the
impugned order refusing to condone the delay or remitting the matter back
to the learned District Judge for giving another opportunity to the appellant
to substantiate his stand.
[7] All the four appeals, accordingly, fail having no merit and are
accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
No comments:
Post a Comment