Rajiv Purusothaman Kutty & Other vs M/S Religare Finvest Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5666 Del

$~15
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      I.A.No.20176/2014 in O.M.P. 1253/2014
                                    Judgment reserved on: 07.11.2014
                                    Judgment pronounced on: 11.11.2014
       RAJIV PURUSOTHAMAN KUTTY & OTHER                      ..... Petitioners
                           Through:     Mr.A.P.Dhamija and Mr.Sarad
                                        Singhania, Advocates
                           versus

       M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.               ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr.Ajay Uppal, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

       JUDGMENT

I.A.No.20176/2014 (for delay in filing)

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is submitted that the ex-parte award in this case was passed on 18.06.2014. The petitioners came to know about the award from the respondent's office at Mumbai and had rushed to Delhi and obtained certified copy by depositing the learned arbitrator's fee of Rs.5500/- on 25.09.2014. It is submitted that the present petition was filed on 30.09.2014. It is submitted that the delay was unintentional caused due to circumstances beyond control. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is a diabetic patient and his sugar

level is above 500. He was hospitalised for medical treatment and was also emotionally shattered on account of untimely death of his brother-in-law who had passed away at the age of 51 years and was also partner in the business. On being hospitalised for a few days he was unable to furnish proper and necessary documents to their counsel at New Delhi. It is requested that the delay in filing the petition be condoned.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the award was received by them only on 25.09.2014 is contrary to record. It is submitted that the respondents had initially participated in the arbitral proceedings and thereafter absented. It is further submitted that after the arbitral award was passed the same was sent by registered post on both the addresses of the petitioners given in the petition and were duly received by them at the address Flat No.601, 6th Floor, Solitare Wadhwa, A.S.Road, Powai, Mumbai, Andheri (East). It is submitted that the arbitral record clearly shows that the A.D. card contains the signatures of the petitioner. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the award was received by them only on 25.09.2014 is contrary to record. It is submitted that no reasonable ground for condonation of delay has been made out.

3. I have heard arguments and have called for the arbitral record which clearly shows that the petitioners had participated in the arbitral proceedings on 10.01.2014, 21.01.2014 and 06.02.2014 and thereafter they had started absenting themselves. Finally, learned arbitrator has passed an award dated 18.06.2014. The said award was duly sent to

the petitioner vide registered post at the address Flat No.601, 6 th Floor, Solitare Wadhwa, A.S.Road, Powai, Mumbai, Andheri (East), and also at the address 102, Sanjay Appa Chambers, Andheri Ghatkopar Line Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai. While the copy of the award at the address of Powai, Andheri (East), Mumbai was received by the petitioners, copy of the award sent at the address of Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai was received back as unclaimed. It is pertinent to mention that these are the addresses given in the petition itself by the petitioners. Therefore, the copy of the award was sent by the learned arbitrator at the correct addresses. The A.D. card bearing the signatures of the recipient placed on arbitral record, clearly shows that the copy of the award was duly sent and received by the petitioner way back on 28.06.2014. The contention of the petitioner in the petition, therefore, that they could receive the award only on 25.09.2014 is false.

4. As per Section 34 (3) of the Act, the period of limitation for filing objections to the award is 90 days from the date of receipt of the award. Since the award had been received on 28.06.2014, the petition ought to have been filed on 27.09.2014. The petition has been filed on 30.09.2014. Therefore, there is a delay of three days in filing the present petition from the date of receipt of the award.

5. The petitioners have contended that the petitioner no.1 has been suffering with diabetes and had also lost is brother-in-law, therefore, could not file the petitioner earlier.

6. Under Section 34 (3) of the Act, the prescribed period of limitation for filing the petition, under Section 34 of the Act, is 90

days from the date of receipt of the award. This period is, however, extendable to 30 days if the petitioner satisfies the court that there was reasonable and sufficient cause which had prevented him from filing the petition. If a petition is filed within extended period of thirty days and the petitioner is able to show sufficient reasons which prevented him from filing it within 90 days, courts are empowered to condone the delay. The petitioner here is a diabetic patient and had lost his brother-in-law (supported by Affidavit). It is also a fact that the petitioners are Mumbai based, and there is a delay of just three days.

7. I am of the opinion that it is a proper case where the delay should be condoned. Justice also demands that the matter be heard on merit rather than dismissed on technical grounds. Accordingly, the delay of three days in filing the present petition is hereby condoned.

8. The application is allowed.

DEEPA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 11, 2014 rb