Tripti De vs Union Of India
2018 Latest Caselaw 7535 Del

$~22
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      FAO 128/2017 & C.M. No.10459/2017
       TRIPTI DE                                      ..... Appellant
                       Through:      Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, Advocate.

                            versus

       UNION OF INDIA                                  ..... Respondent
                Through:             None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
                            ORDER

% 19.12.2018

1. The impugned order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the court of the learned Additional District Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, ('ADJ') in Arbitration Case No.20350/2016 titled as UOI Vs. Tripti De by which the delay in filing the petition under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') was condoned, is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that admittedly copy of the impugned award dated 19.04.2016 was received by the respondent on 30.05.2016 whereas the petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 02.12.2016, that is, after expiry of limitation of 90+30 days, as provided under Section 34 (3) of the Act.

3. After hearing the arguments, the learned ADJ, vide the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the objection under Section 34 of the Act subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. This order was assailed by the appellant in this appeal. Subsequently, the appellant has accepted the cost of Rs.5,000/- on 18.03.2017, which was paid to her by DD No.233206 dated 10.02.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has not encashed the draft, which was accepted on 18.03.2017. In this context, it is observed that the Appellant cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where she has knowingly accepted the benefits of an order, she cannot be permitted to assail the same. This rule is applied to do equity. Therefore, in this case where the appellant has already accepted the cost, she is estopped by her act, conduct and acquiescence to continue the appeal.

5. Accordingly, the appeal along with the application, being C.M. No.10459/2017, is dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back forthwith.

VINOD GOEL, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2018 'AA'