Delhi District Court
Arb 270/ vs Mrs. Veena Atal on 29 May, 2012
In the Court of Ms. Ina Malhotra, Additional. District JudgeI,
New Delhi District:Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Arb 270/11
M/s Associated Forex Services
M43, Connaught Place, New Delhi110001 ......Petitioner
V E R S U S
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sachdev
A71, Asha Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi ......Respondent
Arb: 271/11
M/s Associated Forex Services
M43, Connaught Place, New Delhi110001 ......Petitioner
V E R S US
Mrs. Savitri Tomar
E305, BlockE, SFS Flats, Rohini Sector18
New Delhi ........Respondent
Arb: 273/11
M/s Associated Forex Services
M43, Connaught Place, New Delhi110001 .........Petitioner
V E R S U S
Mrs. Veena Atal
51/4601,Raiger Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi ......Respondent
Petition Presented ON 27.09.2011
Argument concluded ON 29.05.2012
Judgment ON 29.05.2012
Arb. No. 270/11, 271/11, 273/11 Page 1 of 4....
J U D G M E N T
Vide this common Judgment, I propose to decide the above mentioned three petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. All the three petitions are accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay.
2. Petition No.270/11 is taken as lead case. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay application. The grounds taken by the petitioner are that the award was sent to their counsel for drafting and filing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act but on account of the counsel shifting his office from Delhi to Gurgaon, files were mixed up. Further the counsel was also under the impression that objections had been filed by him and therefore, no further steps were taken till the matter was endorsed to another counsel.
3. There is a delay of 21 days beyond the period of 90 days provided for filing the objection against the Award. It has been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the said application is vague and devoid of any particulars. Even the Arb. No. 270/11, 271/11, 273/11 Page 2 of 4.... name of the counsel is not given let alone the date of shifting of his office. A valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent and unless sufficient cause is shown, such right should not be lightly disturbed.
4. I find merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, the application is devoid of particulars and smacks of lack of diligence. The delay cannot be thrust on the shoulders of the counsel to claim condonation.
5. In view of the above,the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
6. Resultantly, the petition also fails.
7. Facts of Arb. No. 271/11 & 273/11 are similar and are also being dismissed on account of delay. Copies be placed in each file.
8. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced.
(Ina Malhotra) Addl. District JudgeI New Delhi District : PHC New Delhi : 29.05.2012 Arb. No. 270/11, 271/11, 273/11 Page 3 of 4....
Arb. No. 270/11, 271/11, 273/11 Present : Counsel for the petitioner Vide my common Judgment, all the three petitions as well as the accompanied applications seeking condonation of delay stand dismissed in terms thereof.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ina Malhotra) Addl. District JudgeI New Delhi District : PHC New Delhi : 29.05.2012 Arb. No. 270/11, 271/11, 273/11 Page 4 of 4....