Mr. Rajendra J. Mandaviya vs The Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, Patto, Panaji Goa., Mrs. Sunita Rajendra J. Mandaviya and Mr. Satish R. Jivani

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. At the outset, Shri Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the names of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Request is granted. The names of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 stand deleted at the risk of the petitioner.

Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels.

Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service.

The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 16.02.2012 in C.M.A. No. 50/2011 whereby an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner to prefer an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be rejected.

During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Shri S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the application for condonation of delay was filed out of abundant caution as according to him the petitioner was not served with the award as contemplated under the Act and the limitation period to file such an application had not elapsed. As such, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that according to the petitioner, the application was within time and as such the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order. Taking note of the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Rivonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that this aspect can be reconsidered by the learned District Judge after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Hence, the following order is passed by consent.

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 16.02.2012 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The learned District Judge is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, keeping all the contentions open including the contention as to whether such an application was filed within the time prescribed under the said Act.

(iii) Rule is disposed of in the above terms.

(iv) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.