Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs M/S Varindera Const. Ltd on 17 September, 2018
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Indu Malhotra
1
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23155/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-04-2013
in FAO No. 178/2013 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S VARINDERA CONST. LTD Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 24471/2013 (XIV)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
1/2013)
Date : 17-09-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, ASG
Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M.S. Samantaray, Adv.
Bharti tyagi, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Deepak Khurana, Adv.
Mr. T. Anand, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. By a judgment dated 19.04.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3995 of 2018 [Union of India vs. M/s Varindera Constructions Ltd. Etc.], Signature Not Verified this Court has in near identical facts and circumstances allowed Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2018.09.19 the appeal of the Union of India in a proceeding arising from an 16:46:12 IST Reason:
Arbitral Award.2
Ordinarily, we would have applied the said judgment to this case as well. However, we find that the impugned Division Bench judgment dated 10.04.2013 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India on the ground of delay. The delay was found to be 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in refiling the appeal.
One of the important points made by the Division Bench is that, apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause made out in the grounds of delay, since a Section 34 application has to be filed within a maximum period of 120 days including the grace period of 30 days, an appeal filed from the self-same proceeding under Section 37 should be covered by the same drill. Given the fact that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, as has been held in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others vs. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri and Others, AIR 1941 Federal Court 5, and repeatedly followed by our judgments, we feel that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.
In this view of the matter, since even the original appeal was filed with a delay period of 142 days, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions on the facts of this particular case.
The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER