Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Oceanic Solvent Industries Ltd on 10 March, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 10.03.2015
+ FAO(OS) 109/2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
versus
OCEANIC SOLVENT INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Vishnu Mehra
For the Respondent : Mr V.K. Sharma for caveator.
Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
%
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
Cav. No. 237/2015
Since the learned counsel for the caveator is present, the
caveat stands discharged.
FAO(OS) No. 109/2015 & CM App. Nos.4284/2015 &
4285/2015
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28 th January,
2015, passed in OMP No. 681/2009 and IA Nos. 14944/2009,
14945/2009 and 20889/2014. Essentially, IA No. 14945/2009,
which was an application seeking condonation of 45 days delay in
re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the said Act‟).
2. The learned Single Judge noted the fact that, while it was
within the powers of the Court to condone the delay in re-filing,
based on the decision of this Court in DDA v. Durga Construction
Co.: (2014) 1 RAJ 490 (DEL), it was also incumbent on the
applicant to show sufficient cause, which prevented the applicants
from re-filing the petition in time. The learned Single Judge was
right in observing that in Durga Construction Co. (supra), a
Division Bench of this Court held that while the Court had
jurisdiction to condone the delay in re-filing, the approach should
not be such, that it becomes too liberal and that the conduct of the
applicant would have to be tested on the anvil of whether the
applicant acted with due diligence and dispatch or not. The
applicant is required to show that the delay was on account of
unavoidable circumstances beyond his control and could not have
been avoided despite all efforts by him.
3. Noting these principles, the learned Single Judge has
examined the application submitted by the appellant for
condonation of delay in re-filing. He has noted that the application
does not even specify the reason except for stating that the delay
occurred due to some unavoidable circumstances.
4. In fact, we have also examined the stay application and we
find that the only paragraphs, which purport to be the reason, are as
under:-
"2. That delay has occurred due to some
unavoidable circumstances which is deeply
regretted.
3. That delay in re-filing of OMP petitioner was
occurred in the aforesaid unavoidable
circumstances. It is in the interest of justice that
delay of 38 days in filing the OMP be condoned.
The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss, if the
delay in re-filing the OMP is not condoned.
4. The delay is not intentional and deliberate."
5. We are in complete agreement with the observation of the
learned Single Judge that no reason whatsoever had been ascribed
for the delay in re-filing the petition.
6. In these circumstances, no interference is called for in the
impugned order.
7. The appeal and the applications are accordingly dismissed.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 10, 2015
n
