Delhi High Court
Asf Insignia Sez P. Ltd vs Punj Lloyd Ltd on 28 August, 2017
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.08.2017
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 24/2017
ASF INSIGNIA SEZ P. LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
PUNJ LLOYD LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dhawan with Mr. Siddharth Agrawal, Mr. S. Panda
and Ms. Vanya Khanna, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
28.08.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
IA No.9705/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 24/2017
1. By this petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the
petitioner seeks extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to consider
the application for amendment of the Statement of Claims on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of
certain errors and omissions in the claim petition, which went to the
root of the matter, the petitioner/claimant filed an application seeking
amendment of the claim petition.
3. It is contended that the Arbitral Tribunal, by order dated
09.08.2017, declined to consider the application solely on the ground
that if the application were to be allowed, it would tantamount to de-
novo start of the arbitration and, resultantly, it would not be possible
to complete the proceedings within the time envisaged under the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the time for
making the award were to be enlarged, the petitioner would approach
the Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioner on merits.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the
application seeking amendment is not maintainable. However, she
has no objection to the time being enlarged.
6. Perusal of order dated 09.08.2017 shows that the Arbitral
Tribunal has declined to consider the application of the petitioner for
amendment on merits, solely on the ground that if the application
were to be allowed, it would not be possible to complete the
proceedings within the time envisaged under the Act. The Tribunal,
as already noticed by the said order, has observed that approximately
17000 pages of documents are on record.
7. The original time for making award expires on 09.09.2017 and
the Tribunal, by order dated 09.08.2017, has, with the consent of the
parties, extended the time for making the award by six months. The
extended period of six months would expire on 09.03.2018.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the
respondent opposes the application for amendment, however, without
prejudice, it is submitted that if the application for amendment were to
be allowed, the respondent would require about four weeks time to
file a response to the amended claim petition.
9. Learned counsel for the parties are agreeable that post the
amendment, issues would not be required to be recast and the parties
would be relegated to the stage where the proceedings presently are
i.e. at the stage of filing of the list of witnesses and the evidence
affidavits by the claimants.
10. Keeping in view the submissions of the parties, the order dated
09.08.2017 and the fact that, if amendment were to be allowed,
respondent would take only four weeks to file a response to the
amended claim petition, I deem it expedient to extend the period for
making the award by further period of three months.
11. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
expressed any opinion on the merits of the application of the
petitioner seeking amendment of the claim petition or the order dated
09.08.2017. This order has been passed only to facilitate the
Arbitrator in considering the application for amendment, if he deems
it appropriate.
13. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 28, 2017/st
