Delhi High Court
Jbs Udyog Ltd. vs The Airports Authority Of India on 11 May, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 05, 2009
Date of Order: May 11, 2009
+ OMP No.237/2009
% 11.05.2009
JBS UDYOG LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. Datta with Mr. Atish Ghosh &
Mr. Niloy Dsgupta, Advs.
Versus
THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: None
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has assailed an award dated 17th
December, 2007 by way of this petition under section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In response, the respondent had
taken objection that the petition was highly belated and was barred
by limitation. The award was passed on 17th December, 2007 and
the present petition has been filed on 31st May, 2008, i.e., beyond
the period of limitation. The petition is accompanied with an
application for condonation of delay. In this application, it is stated
that the petition was filed in the month of May, 2008 for setting
aside the award dated 17th December, 2007. There were few
objections and the petition was returned on 31st May, 2008 for
removing them and for refilling them. The summer vacation of the
Court started on 1st June, 2008. The objections were removed and
the petition was ready for filing on the opening of Courts. However,
the petitioner was a resident of Kolkata and the Advocate who
conducted the matter before the Arbitrator also resided in Kolkata.
Since the Court vacation had started, the petitioner took the original
petition with him to Kolkata to make a paper book for his Advocate.
He handed over the original petition to his Kolkata Advocate. The
Advocate was getting his office renovated during the vacation. The
petition got detached from his other files and became untraceable.
After the renovation, when the files were re-arranged the petition
was not traceable despite vigorous search. Ultimately, it was found
in the store of decided files where it had landed by mistake. The file
was traced in the month of April, 2009 and was received in Delhi on
26th April, 2009 and the petition was re-filed immediately after it was
received in Delhi on 28th April, 2009.
2. I consider the plea taken by the petitioner for
condonation of delay due to circumstances as stated above is not
tenable.
3. The award was passed on 17th December, 2007. Three
months period as provided under Section 34 expired on 16th March,
2008. Even with an application for condonation of delay, the
objections against the award could have been filed maximum by
17th April, 2008. The petition, admittedly, initially was filed in May,
2008. It was therefore highly belated even at the initial instance
and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The plea that the
another order passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 5th April, 2008,
was also made subject matter of the challenge is not tenable
because by order dated 5th April, 2008, an application for
recalling/setting aside the award dated 17th December, 2007 was
dismissed by the learned Arbitrator. Once the Arbitrator has passed
an award, there is no power of review available with the Arbitrator
and the Arbitrator can only correct mistakes as provided in Section
33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If an application for
review is made that does not extend the period for filing objections
against the award. This petition is therefore liable to be dismissed
on the ground of being barred by limitation and is hereby dismissed
on this ground.
May 11, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak
