Delhi High Court - Orders
Spml Infra Limited vs Graphite India Limited on 2 March, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 9/2022 & CM No.2994/2022
SPML INFRA LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through Mr Aayush Agarwala, Mr Sararat
Sengupta, Mr Parag Chatuivedi and
Ms Namrata Saraogi, Advs.
versus
GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Mr T. K. Ganju, Sr Adv with Mr
Anupinder Jassal and Ms Sanniya,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 02.03.2022 [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request]
1. We have briefly heard Mr Ayush Agarwala, who appears on behalf of the appellant.
2. Mr Agarwala has adverted to the following dates and events, which according to him, are necessary for the adjudication of the issue(s) involved in the present appeal :
(i). The arbitral award, in the first instance, was passed on 01.05.2019.
(ii) Upon an application being moved by respondent under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, "the 1996 Act"], a correction was made by the learned arbitrator in the arbitral award on 22.05.2019.
(iii) The action under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was lodged with the Registry of this Court, on 17.09.2019, along with an application for FAO(OS) (COMM) 9/2022 1/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:05.03.2022 17:46:27 condonation of delay. Concededly, even according to the appellant, there was a delay of 28 days in approaching the Court, beyond the three months leeway provided under Section 34(3) of the Act.
(iv) The Registry, for the first time, flagged defects in the petition on 19.09.2019. The appellant cured the defects and re-filed the Section 34 petition on 18.10.2019.
(v) The Registry, once again, pointed out defects in the Section 34 petition on 21.10.2019. These defects were dealt with, and the petition was re-filed on 08.11.2019.
(vi) The Registry, for the third time, pointed out the defects contained in the petition on 13.11.2019. The Section 34 petition was, once again, re- filed, after removing objections on 19.11.2019.
(vii) The Registry for the fourth time, pointed out the defects that obtained in the petition, on 21.11.2019. These defects were removed, and the Section 34 petition was re-filed on the same date.
2.1. Mr T. K. Ganju, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that the Registry had, repeatedly, pointed out defects in the Section 34 petition; despite which they were not removed by the appellant. 2.2. This is an aspect that we can rule on, only after we receive a report from the Registry as to what were the defects pointed out at each stage, and how they were cured by the appellant.
3. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to furnish a report, bearing in mind what has been noted hereinabove.
3.1. The report will be placed before us within five days from today.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 9/2022 2/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:05.03.2022 17:46:273.2. A copy of the report will also be furnished to the counsel for the parties.
4. Furthermore, the counsel for the parties are given liberty to approach the Registry for being furnished with a complete copy of the record, which will include the Section 34 petition.
4.1. The Registry will furnish a copy of the record in the digital mode.
5. List the matter on 10.03.2022, at the end of board, in the category of „After Notice Miscellaneous Matters.‟ RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 2, 2022/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any FAO(OS) (COMM) 9/2022 3/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:05.03.2022 17:46:27