Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Human Settlement Management Institute vs M/S Dmg Consulting Private Limited on 24 May, 2024

                         IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI,
                            DISTRICT JUDGE­07 (SOUTH­EAST),
                              SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

ARBTN 129/2018


HUMAN SETTLEMENT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
                                                                     ..... Petitioner
                                      Vs.

M/S DMG CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED
                                                                     .....     Respondent

24.05.2024

                                         ORDER

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of controversy whether present objections presented by petitioner before this court after its return from Rohini Courts on ground of territorial jurisdiction is within period of limitation or not and whether this court can entertain the same.

2. I have heard arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including judgments filed on behalf of both the parties.

3. It is not in dispute that arbitral award was received by petitioner on 12.09.2014 whereafter objections U/sec 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were filed by petitioner before District Judge at Rohini Courts on 09.12.2014. Objections filed by petitioner were returned to petitioner by order of Ld. ADJ­03 (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi on 27.10.2017. After its return, objections were re­filed by petitioner before this court on 20.04.2018.

Human Settlement Management Institute Vs. M/s DMG Consulting Private Limited Page­1/5

4. Section 34 (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 which deals with limitation aspect of filing objections U/sec 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides as below:­ "An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.

5. As mentioned earlier that arbitral award was received by petitioner in the present case on 12.09.2014 and period of three months for filing objections U/sec 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act would have expired on 11.12.2014. Objections U/sec 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act were filed by petitioner before Rohini Courts on 09.12.2014 meaning thereby that only 2 days of limitation remained as on date of original filing of objections by petitioner in present case.

6. Thereafter, objections were returned by order of Ld. ADJ­03 (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 27.10.2017 on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, after return of objections, the same were re­filed before this court on 20.04.2018 i.e. after period of about 06 months from date of its return despite the fact that only two days of limitation remained for filing it before this court after return from Rohini Courts. No application seeking extension of time was filed by petitioner to extend ARBTN 129/2018 Human Settlement Management Institute Vs. M/s DMG Consulting Private Limited Page­2/5 period of limitation for filing of present petition before this court in terms of proviso to Section 34 (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

7. No explanation has come forward from petitioner for delayed filing of present petition before this court which is filed after delay of more than 05 months after its return from Rohini Courts.

8. Counsel for petitioner filed judgment in case tilted as "EXL Careers and Ors Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited MANU/SC/0576/2020" to support his contentions but ratio of the judgment is not applicable in facts and circumstances of present case as it primarily deals with exclusion of period during which party prosecuted the case before court having no jurisdiction. In the present case, it is period of limitation after return which is in question which in facts of present case exceeded period as provided U/sec 34 (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

9. Counsel for respondent on the other hand filed judgments in cases titled as "Union of India Vs. Mahavir Industries and Ors MANU/DE/0148/2008, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Haryana Telecom Ltd. 172 (2010) DLT 280, Executive Engineer Irrigation & Flood Control Department IA No. 1980 /2007 in TR. E. 15/2006 decided on 05.09.2007, Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470 and Simplex Infrastructure Limited Vs. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 455" in support of his contentions.

10. In Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co. (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as below:

"Here the history and scheme of the 1996 Act support the conclusion that the time limit prescribed Under Section 34 to challenge an award is ARBTN 129/2018 Human Settlement Management Institute Vs. M/s DMG Consulting Private Limited Page­3/5 absolute and unextendible by Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Arbitration and Conciliation bill, 1995 which preceded the 1996 Act stated as one of its main objectives the need "to minimise the supervisory role of Courts in the arbitral process". This objective has found expression in Section 5 of the Act which prescribes the extent of judicial intervention in no uncertain terms."

11. In Simplex Infrastructure Limited case (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Further, a plain reading of sub section (3) alongwith the proviso to S. 34 shows that the application for setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned in sub section (2) of S. 34 could be made within three months and the period can only be extended for a further period of thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter­Further, the use of word "but not thereafter" in the proviso makes it clear that the extension cannot be beyond thirty days.

12. From law as laid down in Simplex Infrastructure Limited case and in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co. (Supra), it is clear that period of limitation for filing objections U/sec 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is three months only extendable for further period of thirty days as laid down in proviso to Section 34 (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act but in present case, as the delay in filing objections after its return from Rohini Courts is of more than five months and no application seeking condonation of delay in filing of present objections U/sec 34 (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed by petitioner, I am of the view that present petition filed by petitioner is time barred and cannot be thus entertained by this court. Objections filed by petitioner U/sec 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act are therefore dismissed being barred by limitation.

Human Settlement Management Institute Vs. M/s DMG Consulting Private Limited Page­4/5

13. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court                                 (Sonu Agnihotri)
on 24.05.2024                                       District Judge ­07 (South­East)
                                                       Saket Courts, New Delhi




ARBTN 129/2018

Human Settlement Management Institute Vs. M/s DMG Consulting Private Limited Page­5/5