Delhi High Court
Green Valley Cghs Ltd vs M/S Gurcharan Singh on 3 August, 2017
$~01
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 176/2016
Date of decision: 3rd August, 2017
GREEN VALLEY CGHS LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Akhil Sibal and Mr. Khalid
Arshad, Advocates.
Versus
M/S GURCHARAN SINGH ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
This intra-Court appeal by Green Valley Cooperative Group
Housing Society Limited impugns order dated 7 th April, 2016,
whereby the learned single Judge has refused to condone delay of 129
days in re-filing of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act, for short). The delay would be 159 days
if the initial date of filing i.e. 29th October, 2014 is ignored and the
objections are treated as filed on 4th April, 2014, when the defects
raised were finally removed in entirety.
2. The appellant-Society has challenged the Award dated 23rd July,
2014 by filing the aforesaid objections. The objections, it is accepted
and admitted, were filed within time as prescribed under Section 34 of
the Act on 27th October, 2014.
3. The objections, however, were returned under office objection
on 30th October, 2014. The objections were taken back by the counsel
for the appellant Mr. B.N. Singhvi and were re-filed on 7th November,
2014. It appears that the objections were not entirely removed. The
Registry once again returned the objections for this reason and also
raised new objections on 11th November, 2014. The objections were
re-filed on 22nd November, 2014 after including typed papers. Yet
again, the objections were returned under office objection on 24th
November, 2014. This process of filing and re-filing of the objections
in the Registry continued till all objections/defects were removed on
4th April, 2015.
4. While this exercise of filing and re-filing was in progress, there
was modification in the practice directions. With effect from 2nd
February, 2015, there was a mandate to file electronic or soft copy in
arbitration matters and filing by other modes was discontinued and
prohibited.
5. The appellant has filed before us, affidavit of Narender Bhalla,
the Secretary of the appellant society. In the said affidavit, the
appellant society asserts that they had engaged Mr. B.N. Singhvi as an
Advocate to file objections and appear for them. The appellant-
society has filed a criminal complaint dated 31st October, 2016 against
him, which has been registered at Police Station-Sector 23, Dwarka.
The allegation is that Mr. B.N. Singhvi was impersonating as an
advocate and had played a fraud. The appellant has paid Rs.
8,98,000/- to Mr. B.N. Singhvi. The bill of Mr. B.N. Singhvi of
Rs.8,98,000/- dated 6th March, 2015 towards drafting, photocopying,
typing, filing, court charges, court fee and scanning as many as one
thousand pages, for filing a CD in E-filing process etc. has been
enclosed. The bill was for the objections under Section 34 of the Act.
The appellants have in addition paid Rs.2,00,000/- (including
Rs.20,000/- towards TDS) towards court fee.
6. Mr. B.N. Singhvi has also filed an affidavit professing that he
was enrolled with Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. He accepts
and agrees that the previous management committee of the appellant
society had appointed him to file objections under Section 34 of the
Act. The objections were initially filed within time on 27th October,
2014. The objection petition was of more than six hundred pages and
in two volumes. Defects were pointed out by the Registry time and
again on 14 occasions and removal of objections and re-filing took
time.
7. On the direction of the Court, Mr. Ankur Sethia, an associate of
Mr. B.N. Singhvi, has also filed an affidavit. Mr. Ankur Sethia was
assisting Mr. B.N. Singhvi and accepts that he was occasionally doing
clerical work in the office between 2013 and 2014.
8. The office objections raised also pertained to the documents etc.
enclosed with the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act. Typed
copy etc. were required to be filed. The objection raised required
typing and the number of pages were substantial. What is also
apparent is that the appellant society has paid substantial amount to
Mr. B.N. Singhvi engaged by them. The typing work and work of
removal of office objection was the obligation and work assigned to
Mr. B.N. Singhvi. The total amount due and payable under the
Award, it is stated, would be in excess of Rs.6 crores.
9. Be that as it may, when we balance lapses, with the facts
equities and the consequences, we feel that it would be just and fair if
the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs. We have, while
examining and balancing equities, taken into consideration the fee
paid by the appellant society, quantum of Award and conduct of the
appellant society. We have also taken into consideration the
inconvenience suffered by the respondent contractor and the delay
occasioned. In view of the pendency of the present appeal, the
respondent has not initiated or filed execution proceedings.
10. The appellant-society shall pay costs of Rs.2,50,000/- to the
respondent. The aforesaid costs would be paid within four weeks from
today. On the cost being paid, the delay in re-filing of objections
would be treated as condoned.
11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
12. The parties will appear before the single Judge on 11 th
September, 2017. As the matter has remained pending for a long time,
the counsel for the parties state that they will be requesting the single
Judge for expeditious disposal.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 03, 2017 NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
NA/VKR
