Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ntpc Ltd. vs Voith Hydro Joint Venture on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy
1
REVISED FOR APPEARANCE ONLY
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7312/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02032020
in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 329/2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi)
NTPC LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VOITH HYDRO JOINT VENTURE Respondent(s)
Date : 15092022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR
Mr. Subhanshu Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Omar Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Shah, Adv.
Mr. Pratibhanu Kharola, Adv.
Ms. Simran Khorana, Adv.
Mr. Tuhin Dey, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Attri, Adv
For M/s.Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This Court vide Order dated 2292020, while declining to entertain the Special Leave Petition, issued notice on the question Signature Not Verified of Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND law with regard to limitation for filing an appeal under Date: 2022.09.22 14:06:15 IST Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Reason:
The aforesaid question was to be viewed in the light of two earlier decisions of this Court, i.e., “Union of India v. Varindera 2 Constructions Limited”, (2020) 2 SCC 111 and “N.V. International v. State of Assam and Others”, (2020) 2 SCC 209. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – N.T.P.C. has fairly pointed out that the aforesaid question of law has been subsequently settled by a threeJudge Bench of this Court in “Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer v M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.” (2021) 6 SCC 460.
In Para 50 of the abovecited decision, this Court has overruled the twoJudge Bench decision in N.V. International (supra) and thereafter in Para 61 has held as follows: “Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.” The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the light of above reproduced legal proposition laid down by a three Judge Bench.
(VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7312/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02032020 in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 329/2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) NTPC LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VOITH HYDRO JOINT VENTURE Respondent(s) Date : 15092022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Subhanshu Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) M/s.Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This Court vide Order dated 2292020, while declining to entertain the Special Leave Petition, issued notice on the question of law with regard to limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The aforesaid question was to be viewed in the light of two earlier decisions of this Court, i.e., “Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Limited”, (2020) 2 SCC 111 and “N.V. International v. State of Assam and Others”, (2020) 2 SCC 209.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – N.T.P.C. has fairly pointed out that the aforesaid question of law has been subsequently settled by a threeJudge Bench of this Court in 4 “Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer v M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.” (2021) 6 SCC 460.
In Para 50 of the abovecited decision, this Court has overruled the twoJudge Bench decision in N.V. International (supra) and thereafter in Para 61 has held as follows: “Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.” The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the light of above reproduced legal proposition laid down by a three Judge Bench.
(VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)