Delhi High Court
The Chief Executive Officer J And K Era ... vs Abhiram Infra Projects Pvt Ltd on 31 July, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 25/2023
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER J AND K ERA
SRINAGAR KASHMIR THROUGH AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE ABDUL KHALIQ QURESHI PROJECT
MANAGER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan,
Ms.Malvica Satija, Mr. Sarthak Sawhney
and Mr. Parth Awasthi, Advs.
versus
ABHIRAM INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aditya Sikka, Adv. Mr.
Meghav Gupta, Ms. Komal Vats, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 31.07.2024
1. This petition is admittedly instituted under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, challenging an arbitral award
passed on 18 May 2022 and stated to have been received by the
petitioner on 2 June 2022.
2. The contention of Mr. Pravin Chauhan, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, is that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in arbitrating on the
dispute under the 1996 Act and that the arbitration should have been
conducted under the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation
"the 1996 Act"
O.M.P. (COMM) 25/2023 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.08.2024 Signing Date:01.08.2024
14:58:23 14:56:09
Act, 19972.
3. Mr. Aditya Sikka, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits
that this issue cannot be examined in this petition, as the petition has
been filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act beyond 120 days from the
date of receipt of the impugned arbitral award. As Section 34(3), read
with the proviso thereto, fixes 120 days as the maximum period within
which a petition under Section 34 can be filed, he submits that this
petition has to be dismissed on limitation.
4. Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks to
contend, per contra, that his basic case is that the Arbitral Tribunal
erred in proceeding in terms of the 1996 Act and that, according to
him, the J & K Act was applicable. He submits that the challenge to
the present award would be within the time provided for challenging
an arbitral award under the J & K Act. Without examining which Act
applies, therefore, Mr Chauhan would seek to submit that this petition
cannot be dismissed as time-barred.
5. The contention, in my opinion, is misdirected.
6. The arbitral award has, rightly or wrongly, been passed under
the 1996 Act. That is a fact which cannot be wished away. The
present petition has also, therefore, been correctly filed under Section
34 of the 1996 Act. It is open to the petitioner to argue that the
Arbitral Tribunal ought to have proceeded to arbitrate on the dispute
"the J & K Act" hereinafter
O.M.P. (COMM) 25/2023 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.08.2024 Signing Date:01.08.2024
14:58:23 14:56:09
under the J & K Act, but the fact is that it has not done so. The
Arbitral Tribunal having arbitrated on the dispute - as already noted,
wrongly or rightly - under the 1996 Act and the present petition,
challenging the arbitral award having also been preferred under
Section 34 of the 1996 Act, the petition can be entertained only if it
subscribes to the time discipline envisaged by Section 34.
7. The question of examining whether the Arbitral Tribunal was
correct in arbitrating on the dispute in terms of the 1996 Act instead of
the J & K Act would arise only if this Court has the jurisdiction to
hear the matter.
8. A Section 34 petition which is filed beyond 120 days from
receipt of the arbitral award cannot be entertained by the Court in
view of the terminus ad quem of 120 days envisaged by the proviso to
Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act.
9. Qua a Section 34 petition filed beyond 120 days from the date
of receipt of the award under challenge, therefore, the Court is coram
non judice.
10. As such, the present petition, having been preferred under
Section 34 of the 1996 Act beyond 120 days from the date of receipt
of the impugned arbitral award, the contention of Mr. Chauhan that
the learned Arbitral Tribunal erred in arbitrating on the dispute under
the 1996 Act instead of the J & K Act, cannot be examined at all.
O.M.P. (COMM) 25/2023 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.08.2024 Signing Date:01.08.2024
14:58:23 14:56:09
11. This petition is therefore, dismissed as barred by time.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 31, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
O.M.P. (COMM) 25/2023 Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.08.2024 Signing Date:01.08.2024
14:58:23 14:56:09
