D.D.A. vs M/S Sunder Lal
2009 Latest Caselaw 2052 Del

11
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 FAO(OS) 224/1997
                                                          14th May, 2009.


        D.D.A.                                    ..... Appellant
                             Through   Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv.

                    versus


        M/S SUNDER LAL                              ..... Respondent
                     Through           None.

        CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment?


     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?


     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

%                         J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated

14.2.1997 passed in a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

The main grievance of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be in

FAO(OS) 224/1997 Page 1 respect of claim No.4 for Rs.4,20,000/-. Counsel submits that the said claim

was sought to be raised on 12.8.95, more than four years after having earlier

invoked the arbitration clause by the letter dated 15.11.1991.

2. We are in agreement with the plea of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified in referring the

additional claims after a prolonged delay subsequent to the invocation dated

15.11.1991. The additional claims raised on 12.8.1995 are ex facie time

barred and cannot be said to be live. There is in fact no appearance on behalf

of counsel for the respondent to explain the delay of four years, and therefore,

it is clear that the additional claims raised at the stage of final arguments

before the Arbitration hearing the claims of the respondent under the same

contract were not for a legitimate purpose of adjudication of live claims. No

reason has been given by the respondent as to the cause for the said delay.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge

cannot be sustained and, therefore, is accordingly set aside.

The appeal stands disposed of.

                                             MUKUL MUDGAL,J


                                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MAY 14, 2009
ib



FAO(OS) 224/1997                                                          Page 2