Union Of India vs M/S. Ved Prakash Arora & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4214 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO 267/2016

                                              Decided on: 31st May, 2016

       UNION OF INDIA                                      ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Ms. Suman Arora, Advocate


                          versus


       M/S. VED PRAKASH ARORA & ANR.                ..... Respondents
                          Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.21708/2016 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception.

Application stands disposed of.

FAO 267/2016 and CM APPL.21709/2016 (delay) & CM APPL. 21707/2016 (stay)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Union of India under

Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against the

order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge, Delhi dismissing the objections of the appellant against the

award dated 27.09.2013 (later corrected to 08.11.2013).

2. Along with the appeal, there is an application filed under Section 5

of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The said

application has sought condonation of 362 days delay in filing of

the appeal. The reason given for condonation of delay are that there

was an ambiguity in the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 and

therefore, it resulted in delay in as much as they first filed CM

(Main). Though the applicability of Section of the Limitation Act

to arbitration proceedings itself is debatable but without going into

that question even if the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is considered on merits, it is bereft of any ground.

Even if there was an ambiguity in the order dated 29.01.2015

passed by the learned ADJ the only remedy which was available

under the statute to the appellant was to file an appeal under

Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. It is not

understandable who advised the appellant that instead of filing an

appeal at the earliest against the rejection of its objections by the

learned ADJ under Section 34 of the Act the appellant should

prefer the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Even this CM (Main) is purported to have been dismissed on

25.01.2016 and court has taken note of the fact that the appeal was

filed almost after expiry of one year for which no justification was

given. It seems that the officials of the appellant were in league

with the claimant/respondent and they were never sincere and

diligent to prosecute the appropriate remedy, so as to challenge the

rejection of their objections. It seems that they only wanted a seal

of legitimation and wanted to complete the paper work.

3. I feel that this is a very serious matter and the person who was

competent to take the decision as to whether appeal was to be filed

against the objections or not and at what stage the file travelled and

where deserves to be inquired into so as to fix the responsibility.

This is high time that the officials of the government must pull up

their socks and act with due diligence as it amounts to the loss of

time and money to the government of India. The law of limitation

equally applies to both the Union of India as well as to the private

parties. It may also be pertinent here to mention that the objections

under Section 34 of the Act have to be filed within a period of 90

days which is extendable maximum by another 30 days. If the

objections under Section 34 of the Act have to be filed within

maximum period of 120 days, it is not understandable as to how

the appeal can be filed beyond the period of 120 days. I, therefore,

feel that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the fact of

the case is that it was only a ploy to get a seal of legitimation. The

matter needs inquiry.

4. I, therefore, direct that the copy of this order be sent to the

Secretary, Ministry of Defence with the request that he should

direct the competent authority to hold an inquiry and fix the

responsibility as to what was the reason for not filing the appeal

against the rejection of their objections by the trial court against the

award within the prescribed period. If any misconduct or lapse is

found on the part of any official of the appellant, then appropriate

departmental action shall also be initiated against him/her.

5. The entire process of holding inquiry as well as fixation of

responsibility shall be completed within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of the order and the concerned Chief

Engineer of the appellant shall file an Affidavit stating the outcome

of the said inquiry and the fixation of responsibility with the

Registrar General of this Court. The file may be placed before the

Registrar General after the expiry of three months.

6. However, so far as appeal is concerned, the same is dismissed as

barred by time.

7. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, no orders on the stay

applications are called for.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 31, 2016 vk