State of Orissa Vs. R.C. Sahoo

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 4. it is well settled that this court cannot sit in appeal against the award of the arbitrator and cannot go into details of evidence or documents placed before the..........reasons for the award. it is sufficient if he has taken into consideration the claims of both parties and has given reasonable opportunities to them and it cannot be said that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrator for not assigning reasons for his decision (see state of orissa v. u. n. samantray, air 1979 orissa 39).in view of the aforesaid circumstances, i do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the trial court.5. a cross appeal has been filed claiming future interest. it is stated that a petition was filed before the subordinate judge claiming future interest, but unfortunately no finding has been given by the subordinate judge. it is well settled that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of section 29 of the act if his claim has been allowed. it has been held in state of orissa v. ramachandra sahu, (1981) 51 cut lt 333, that the claimant is entitled to the interest subsequent to the decree until recovery of the amount. the same view has also been expressed by this court in state of orissa v. s. l. narayan air 1980 orissa 173, relying on the aforesaid decision of this court, i hold that the respondent is entitled to future interest from the date of the decree till the date of payment on rs. 90,159.00.6. in the ressult, the misc. appeal is dismissed without cost and the cross-appeal is allowed without cost. the respondent is entitled to future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on rs. 90,159.00 from the date of decree up to the date of payment.