The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharma and Associates vs New Delhi Municipal Council consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva while setting aside the impugned order upheld Trial Court’s decree and holds the objections filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) to be within time in terms of the Section 34(3) of the Act.
Facts
The award impugned was published on 14.11.2019. The appellant on the said date was in Canada. Since the Tribunal was constituted by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC for short), Appellant by email dated 16.11.2019, requested DIAC for being provided with a copy of the Award. Appellant was informed that a copy of the award had been sent by speed post, however a soft copy of the award dated 14.11.2019 was sent by email on 20.11.2019. Appellant contended that he received the copy of the award sent by speed post only on his return from Canada. The time for filing the objections expired on 20.02.2020, excluding the date of receipt of the copy by email. As per the appellant, he was in Canada and returned only on 29.02.2020. Appellant was thereafter quarantined as per Government’s advisory and soon after he was released from quarantined, lockdown was imposed in the country. As one of his neighbours tested positive, the entire street, where the house of the appellant is situated, was blocked and no one was allowed out of their houses. It was only on 04.06.2020 that his neighbour delivered the hard copy of the award. His counsel was not cooperating and as such the appellant has to apply for the certified copy of the Arbitral Award. The Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition by order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period of limitation with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders.
Procedural History
Subject objections under section 34 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 23.01.2021. It was contended by the appellant that the entire period w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 23.01.2021 was liable to be excluded while computing limitation. The trial court held that the appellant had not been able to show that he was prevented by a sufficient cause from moving the application within the original period of limitation of 90 days. Trial court held that the period of 90 days expired on 20.02.2020 prior to any restrictions imposed on international flights on account of outbreak of pandemic.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the Trial court had taken a hyper technical view of the provisions of the statute and the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. Section 34 provides for a period of three months to file objections and then a further period of 30 days subject to the applicant showing sufficient case for not filing the objections within three months.
It further observed that Appellant has explained the circumstances which amounts to sufficient cause for not filing the objections within the prescribed period of three months.
Judgment
The objections filed under section 34 of the Act were held to be within time in terms of the Proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act. 21. The impugned order was set aside. The objections were restored to their original number on the file of the Trial Court. The parties were to appear before the Trial Court on 17.05.2022 for further proceedings.
Case Name: Sharma and Associates vs New Delhi Municipal Council
Citation: FAO 257/2021 & CM APPL. 41562/2021
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Decided on: 04th May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
