It is common ground that the petitioner instituted proceedings inthe High Court of Colombo on 02.08.2006 (Application No. HC/ARB998/2006). As stated earlier, it is also common ground that theTribunal had pronounced its Award only on 31.05.2006 and the lettersent by the Arbitration Centre along with the said Award was dated
According to the appellant, he had received the saidAward on 14.06.2006. Section 32 of the Arbitration Act clearly states
206Sri Lanka Law Reports[2008] 1 Sri L.R
that the application for setting aside the arbitral award has to be filed'within sixty days of the receipt of the award.' The emphasis, it is to benoted in this clause, is on the ’receipt of the award' and hence, thedate which is important for a matter initiated in terms of Section 32 ofthe Arbitration Act, is not the date that the Award was 'pronounced, butthe date such Award was received by the party, who is relying onSection 32 of the Arbitration Act.
On an examination of the judgment of the High Court it is thusapparent that the High Court had gone on the basis that an applicationin terms of Section 32 should be filed within 60 days from the date ofthe pronouncement of the Award.
In these circumstances, when one considers the aforementionedfacts and circumstances, it is absolutely clear that the appellant'sapplication dated 02.08.2006 in case No. HC/ARB 998/2006 was filedclearly within the time frame stipulated by Section 32 of the ArbitrationAct.
It is therefore evident that learned Judge of the High Court haderred in holding that the appellant's application filed in the High Courtof Colombo, viz., HC/ARB 998/2006 was out of time.
On a consideration of all the material placed before this Court Iaccordingly answer the question on which Leave to Appeal wasgranted in the negative.
Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed andthe judgment of the learned Judge of the High Court of Colombodated 14.11.2007 is set aside.
This matter is referred back to the High Court of Colombo forinquiry de novo.
I make no order as to costs.
SOMAWANSA, J.-I agree.
RATNAYAKE, J.-I agree.
Appeal allowed.
Matter referred back to the High Court for inquiry de novo.