Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ms Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd vs Ms Gail Gas Limited on 26 July, 2022

Author: Neena Bansal Krishna

Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna

                          $~11
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      O.M.P. (COMM) 509/2020 & I.A. 9551/2020
                                 MS MITTAL PIGMENTS PVT LTD                             ..... Petitioner
                                                    Through:     Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

                                                    versus

                                 MS GAIL GAS LIMITED                                 ..... Respondent
                                                    Through:     Mr. Deepayan Mandal & Mr. Naman
                                                                 Varma, Advocates.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                                  ORDER

% 26.07.2022 I.A. 9552/2020 and I.A. 5535/2021 (Delay fo 40 days in re-filing petition)

1. It is submitted that the Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was received on 05.11.2019 by the petitioner. He filed his OMP on 03.02.2020 for the first time which was well within the limitation of 90 days. Thereafter, on scrutiny, the Registry pointed out certain defects on 06.02.2020. The defects were ultimately removed and the OMP was re-filed on 25.02.2020, however, there were again certain defects pointed out by the Registry.

2. It is submitted that in the light of the COVID-19 situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 in its suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 3/2020 has extended the period of limitation in all the proceedings irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law w.e.f 15.03.2020.

3. It is submitted that the delay caused in re-filing the OMP was Signature Not Verified Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:28.07.2022 11:12:14 unintentional and not deliberate. Prayer is therefore made that the delay of 40 days in re-filing the instant OMP may be condoned.

4. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has taken an objection on the ground that this is the same defect which was pointed out by the Registry twice and was not addressed by the petitioner showing their negligence and therefore the reason given is inadequate and the period of limitation in the judgment for extension is not applicable in the instant case.

5. Submissions heard.

6. Considering the reasons given in the application, the delay of 40 days is condoned.

7. Applications are accordingly allowed.

O.M.P. (COMM) 509/2020

1. List for arguments on 4th November,2022.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JULY 26, 2022/PA Signature Not Verified Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:28.07.2022 11:12:14