Delhi High Court
Mcd vs M/S Kamla Valves Manufacturing on 6 October, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: September 04, 2009
Date of Order: October 06, 2009
+IA Nos.11523-524/07 & 13815-816/06
in CS(OS) No.2160/95
% 06.10.2009
MCD .... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Sadhna Sharma, Adv.
Versus
M/S KAMLA VALVES MANUFACTURING .... Defendant
Through: Mr.Anil Kr. Mishra with
Mr. D.Samanta, Advs.
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?
ORDER
1. During pendency of the suit under Sections 14 and 15 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940, the defendant no.1 filed an IA No.3990/00
raising objections against the award. These objections of the
objector/applicant were dismissed in default on 10th April, 2001. The
applicant filed an OA No.4678/01 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set
aside the order dated 10th April, 2001. Again none appeared to
prosecute this OA No.4678/01 and this application was dismissed in
default on 3rd September, 2002. Applicant then filed second
application, i.e., IA No.10053/02 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set
aside the order dated 10th April, 01. This application was also
dismissed in default on 30th October, 2002. From 30th October, 2002
till 2006 the applicant kept sleeping coolly. Then third IA
No.13816/06 under Order 9 rule 13 was made by the applicant for
setting aside the order dated 10th April, 2001. This application was
also dismissed in default on 24th September, 2007 and thereafter
applicant made two applications bearing IA No.13815/06 under
Section 5 to condone the delay in filing fourth application
no.13816/06 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. This application 13815/06
was dismissed in default on 24th September, 2007. Then applicant
filed fifth IA No.11524/07 under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the
order dated 10th April, 2001. This application is accompanied by
another application being IA No.11523/07 under Section 5 of
Limitation act which is subject matter of disposal of this order. He
also filed another IA No.11475/07 for restoration of IA Nos.13815/06
and 13816/06 which were dismissed on 24.9.2007.
2. The plea taken by the applicant is that applicant had its
office at Howrah(Calcutta) and carrying its business from Calcutta.
After service of summons of the suit, the proprietor of applicant firm
engaged an Advocate, Mr. R.K.Singh for handling the suit and
challenging the award. Thereafter the proprietor contacted his
Advocate in Delhi and he was told that the application for setting
aside the award and deciding the suit has been filed and was being
prosecuted. The applicant kept on requesting his Advocate to send
him the orders passed by the Court. On 10.10.2006 the applicant
was shocked to receive a notice of execution caseno.200/06 filed by
the Delhi Jal Board and then the applicant came to know that the
award has been made a rule of the Court. The applicant all along
had been under the impression that his objection petition had been
allowed and the award has been set aside. He then tried to contact
his earlier Advocate but was unable to do so as the Advocate was
not available at his office. His whereabouts were not known. The
applicant however traced him out and found that he was seriously ill
and bed ridden. The applicant then came to Delhi and engaged a
new set of Advocates and learnt about the past proceedings on
inspection of file by his new Advocate. It is stated that the applicant
suffered only due to negligence of his earlier Advocate who did not
discharge his professional duty as expected and the applicant
should not be made to suffer for negligence of the Advocate. About
the applications no.13815/06 and 13816/06 being dismissed in
default on 24.9.07 nothing is stated.
3. The present applications cannot be entertained not only
because of callous and negligent attitude of the applicant but also
since the Court is being taken for granted. The objections by the
applicant were filed in 2000. The applicant has stated that he was
businessman of Calcutta and was operating from Calcutta but the
fact remains that he has accepted business in Delhi and had
entered into a contract with MCD for execution of work in Delhi. He
cannot take an excuse that he was not stationed at Delhi and
therefore has a right to remain in his house in Calcutta without
bothering about the case in Delhi. From 2000 to 2006, the applicant
did not pursue his case. He states he was dependent on his
Advocate and presumed that the award has been set aside, while it
is his own plea that his Advocate did not send him orders of the
Court and he did not receive order of the Court setting aside the
award. I therefore consider that the Court cannot give liberty to a
person to sleep over the matter for years together and then
suddenly woken up after 6 or 7 years and tell the Court that now he
has waken up and the hands of the clock should be set back and the
order passed by the Court should be recalled. The award was made
rule of the Court on 10th April, 01 when the objections of the
applicant were dismissed and decree was passed. I find no cogent
reason given by the applicant to condone the delay of 6 long years
in moving the application. The applications made by the applicant
are hereby dismissed being without merit.
October 06, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak
