Delhi High Court - Orders
Zte Telecom India Pvt. Ltd vs Om Logistics Limited on 1 December, 2023
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 453/2019
ZTE TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal and Ms. Nandini
Aishwarya, Advocates.
versus
OM LOGISTICS LIMITED
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Ambuj
Tiwari, Mr. Ninad Dogra and Ms.
Adya Rao, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 01.12.2023
1. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the corrected Award is dated 16.05.2019 but the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on 12.09.2019. However, as per the Log Information, the filing had the following defects :
"Total 68 pages filed without bookmarking without pagination, Statement of Truth/ Affidavits not attested not signed, No application filed, Vakalatnama not signed by the Advocate and Petitioner, Petition not dated, No Award filed, No documents filed, In addition to the E- filing it is mandatory to file hard copies of the fresh matters filed under Section 9, 11 and 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 w.e.f 22.10.2018."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2023 at 00:35:09
2. From the objections so listed it is evident that the petition was not supported by Statements of Truth, Affidavits, the Award was not filed and even the signed vakalatnama had not been filed.
3. It is clearly a non est filing as has been held in the case of DDA vs Durga Construction Company, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4451, wherein it was observed that in some situations, where a party's petition or application is so blatantly insufficient or flawed and they contain flaws that are essential to the institution of the proceedings, their filing would be deemed non-est and meaningless.
4. In this regard the Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Parmar v. D.C. Sankhla, 1995 RLR 85, held that the emphasis should be on the nature of defects found in the plaint. If the defects are formal or ancillary in nature not affecting the validity of the plaint, the date of presentation would be the date of original presentation for the purpose of calculating the limitation for filing the suit. On the other hand, if the defects are of such character that would render a plaint a non-plaint in the eye of law, then the date of presentation would be the date of re-filing after removal of defects. The Division Bench upheld this view in D.C Sankhla v. Ashok Kumar, 1995 (1) AD (New Delhi) 753.
5. The Log Information further shows that these defects were removed and the re-filing was done on 15.10.2019. In light of the principles above, clearly this is the date which can be taken as date of first filing which is beyond three months and thirty days as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
6. The objections are hereby dismissed as barred by limitation.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2023 at 00:35:09
7. The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J DECEMBER 1, 2023/va This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2023 at 00:35:09