Delhi High Court
M/S Magnum Builders & Developers vs Uoi Through The Managing Direcor, ... on 26 March, 2015
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 20th March, 2015
Judgment Delivered on: 26th March, 2015
+ FAO(OS) 19/2015 & CM No. 581/2015
M/S MAGNUM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS .....Appellant
versus
UOI THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECOR, IRCON
INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANR. ....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Arun Kumar Varma, Ms Sahiti Kachroo and Mr
Mayank Sapra, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr K.R.Gupta and Ms Saroj Endlaw, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the
judgment dated 17.11.2014. The application seeking condonation of
delay of 92 days in re-filing the Objection Petition under Section 34 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the
said "Act") has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the
===============================================================
impugned order and consequently the Objection Petition has also been
dismissed.
2. The award was published on 07.06.203. It is an admitted
position that a copy of the award was received by the appellant on
12.06.2013. The Objection Petition was initially filed within the
statutory period of 90 days on 09.09.2013. The Objection Petition
was returned by the Registry on 10.09.2013, pointing certain defects
in the petition, with a direction to the appellant to re-file the same
within one week. The Objection Petition was not refiled within seven
days but, was re-filed on 10.12.2013, which was again returned on
account of certain defects on 12.12.2013. It was finally re-filed on
13.12.2013.
3. The Appellant filed the Objection Petition with an application
seeking condonation of delay. The ground raised by the appellant in
the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing was as under:
"2. That the abovementioned petition was filed on
09.09.2013 but certain defects were found, and the
said petition was to be re-filed after removal of the
objections.
3. That on 04.10.2013 it was discovered that the said
file was missing from the office and the staff was
unable to recover the file.
4. That on 01.12.2013, it was discovered that the file
had been mistakenly mixed up with another set of
===============================================================
files of a different forum, resulting in this
confusion."
4. The reason stated by the appellant in the application seeking
condonation of delay is that on 4.10.2013 it was discovered that the
filed had been missing from the office and the staff was unable to
trace the file and it was only on 01.12.2013 that it was discovered that
the file had been mistakenly mixed up with another set of files of a
different forum.
5. Learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has failed to
satisfactorily explain the delay in re-filing the petition. No sufficient
cause was shown and thus the application seeking condonation of
delay has been dismissed.
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant before us is that the appellant was not made aware by his
counsel who was handling the matter about the Objection Petition
being returned by the Registry and the delay in re-filing of the
objections and as such the appellant should not be penalised for the
fault of the counsel.
7. The Objection Petition was returned under objections on
10.09.2013 notifying certain defects, with a direction to the appellant
to re-file the same within one week. The same was re-filed in the first
instance on 10.12.2013. The ground taken is that the file was missing.
Even if it were to be assumed that it was discovered on 4.10.2013 that
===============================================================
the file was missing, there is no explanation forthcoming in the said
application as to why steps were not taken to re-file the Petition within
one week of 10.09.2013. There is further no explanation as to what
steps were taken by the appellant between 04.10.2013 when it was
allegedly discovered that the file was missing till 01.12.2013 when the
file was allegedly found. Even after 01.12.2013, nine days were taken
in re-filing the petition which was filed on 10.12.2013.
8. It is settled that the time limits laid down by the Act have to be
strictly followed. The delay in filing the Objection Petition under
section 34 of the Act cannot be condoned. However a slightly liberal
approach has to be adopted with regard to the delay in re-filing. Even
when a liberal approach has to be followed, the condonation is not for
the asking and the petitioner has to show that the petitioner was
diligent in all respects and the circumstances were beyond the control
of the petitioner and there is no inordinate delay. The applicant has to
show that the applicant was diligent and not lacking in any respect or
negligent. Stricter scrutiny has to be carried out of the cause that
prevented the applicant from re-filing the objections to ascertain
whether the same is sufficient cause or not. By a liberal interpretation
of sufficient cause, the party cannot be permitted to circumvent the
statutory period prescribed by law.
9. The appellant has tried to shift the blame to the earlier counsel.
In our view, the appellant cannot shift the blame to the counsel
===============================================================
entirely, if at all. The appellant has failed to show as to what steps, the
appellant had taken after the objection petition was originally filed on
09.09.2013 in finding out from his counsel about the fate of his
petition. The appellant cannot be permitted to take benefit by blaming
his earlier counsel. Since time limits prescribed by the act have to be
strictly followed, the appellant cannot be permitted a larger period
merely because his counsel allegedly did not inform him about the
objections or the delay in re-filing.
10. We also do not find that the appellant has shown any sufficient
cause, entitling the appellant to seek condonation of delay in re-filing.
We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. In view of the
above, the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
MARCH 26, 2015 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
sv
===============================================================
