Union Of India vs Hardy Exploration And Production ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 449 Del

$~SB-1
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    OMP 693/2013
     UNION OF INDIA                                      ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Rajat Nair and Mr. Vishnu Sharma,
                        Advocates

                        versus

     HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION (INDIA)
     INC.                                     ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. Rajiv Nair, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                 Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Mr.
                 Harshvardhan Jha and Mr. Karan Luthra,
                 Advocates

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                  ORDER

     %            20.01.2016

     Review Petition     400/2015 and IA 17301/2015 (for additional
     documents)

1. This is a petition filed, to seek review of order dated 09.07.2015. For the sake of convenience, the said order is extracted hereinbelow.

"..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 OMP 693/2013 page 1 of 3 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.

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 The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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..."

1.1 A perusal of the aforementioned order would show that the concerned law officer who represented the petitioner on that date, withdrew the captioned petition to approach the appropriate forum; albeit in accordance with law. This aspect of the matter finds mention in paragraph 2.2 of the order extracted above.

1.2 As a matter of fact, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that the delay caused on account of time spent in this court

OMP 693/2013 page 2 of 3 ought to be condoned. As is evident from paragraph 3 of the order dated 09.07.2015, I had indicated that this aspect will have to be considered by the appropriate forum. It is, in these circumstances, that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. I must note though elaborate arguments were addressed, on the previous dates, on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr Tushar Mehta, learned ASG, as to how and why this court would have jurisdiction in the matter. However, having heard, the learned ASG, to my mind, what cannot be lost sight of, is that, the court at this juncture is only exercising review jurisdiction. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was withdrawn by the petitioner on its own volition, albeit under advice, I find, there is no error apparent on the record; a pre-requisite for triggering the review jurisdiction of this court.

3. Thus, in my opinion, the captioned review petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed.

4. Consequently, the pending application will suffer the same fate having been rendered infructuous. It is, also, accordingly, dismissed.

                                             RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 20, 2016
yg
OMP 693/2013                                                    page 3 of 3