Union Of India vs Hardy Exploration & Production ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 4849 Del

$~SB-2
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    OMP 693/2013
     UNION OF INDIA                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Aastha
                          Jain and Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocates

                          versus

     HARDY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (INDIA)
     INC.                                      ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, Sr. Advocate with
                 Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Mr.
                 Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Karan Luthra and Mr.
                 Vyom Shah, Advocates

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                  ORDER

% 09.07.2015

1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) to challenge the award dated 02.02.2013.

1.1 There are two principal objections taken by the respondent herein. First, a petition under Section 34 of the Act would not lie in view of the fact that it is a foreign award. Second, even if, the petition under Section 34 of the Act, is maintainable, the said petition will not lie in this court as this court does not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction.

OMP 693/2013 page 1 of 2

2. I may note that in the petition the only averment which has been made with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this court, is that, the office of the petitioner is within the territorial limits of this court. This assertion is made in paragraph 30 of the petition. 2.1 Mr. Jain, the learned ASG cannot but submit that, this by itself cannot trigger the jurisdiction of this court. 2.2 At this stage, Mr. Jain seeks to withdraw the captioned petition to move to an appropriate forum; albeit in accordance with law. 2.3 Mr. Jain, further says that the delay caused on account of the time spent in this court, ought to be condoned.

3. According to me, this aspect will have to be considered by the appropriate forum. Needless to say, the respondent will have a right to oppose any prayer by the petitioner for condoning the delay on account of the time spent in this court.

4. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

5. Since, I have not examined the matter on merits, the rights and contentions of parties are left open.

6. The Registry will, accordingly return, the original paper book to the authorised representative of the petitioner, within a week from today.

7. Dasti to both parties, under the signatures of the Court Master.

                                                RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 09, 2015
yg
OMP 693/2013                                                      page 2 of 2