Calcutta High Court
M/S. Magadh Precision Equipment ... vs Super Smelters Limited on 27 January, 2020
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
ODC-4
AP 868 of 2019
With
AP 22 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. MAGADH PRECISION EQUIPMENT LIMITED
Versus
SUPER SMELTERS LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Date : 27th January, 2020.
Appearance:
Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhojit Saha, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court : Both the applications, AP No.868 of 2019 and AP No. 22 of 2020 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act of 1996") are taken up together.
In the application, AP 868 of 2019, the respondent in the arbitral proceeding has challenged the award made by the sole Arbitrator on September 15, 2019 in so far as the same allowed the first, second and the last claim of the claimant, the respondent in the arbitral proceeding amounting to Rs.1,24,15,120/-. The applicant has filed this application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 within three months from the date of the said award. 2
Accordingly, the application, AP No.868 of 2019 is admitted. It is submitted that the applicant in AP No.868 of 2019 has disclosed all the records of the arbitral proceeding. However, if any of the parties find that some records of the arbitral proceeding are missing, it shall be entitled to file the supplementary paper book to disclose such missing document.
In so far as the application, AP No.22 of 2020 is concerned, the same is at the instance of the claimant in the arbitral proceeding challenging the arbitral award dated September 15, 2019 in so far as the same rejected its third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth claim in the arbitral proceeding and allowed the respondent's counter-claim for Rs.15,11,600/-.
Although the claimant in the arbitral proceeding has not filed the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 within three months from the date of receipt of the award, but it has filed the application within thirty days thereafter.
Considering the statements made by the claimant in this application, I am satisfied that the claimant has sufficiently explained the facts which prevented it from filing the said application within the period of three months from the date of the award.
Accordingly, in exercise of discretion conferred by proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, the delay in preferring the application, AP No.22 of 2020 is condoned.
3
Since both parties to the arbitral proceeding have challenged the award dated September 15, 2019, the applications, AP No.868 of 2019 and AP No.22 of 2020 shall be heard analogously.
The applications, AP No.868 of 2019 and AP No.22 of 2020 appear in the monthly list of April, 2020.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) s.pal