Delhi High Court - Orders
Arch Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd vs Ircon International Ltd on 7 February, 2019
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 205/2018
ARCH CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Sadiqua Fatma and Mr.Akhil
Aggarwal, Advs.
versus
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.M.K.Pandey, Mr.K.K. Khurna
and Ms.Kanika Raj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 07.02.2019 I.A. No.6568/2018 (Delay)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of 43 days delay in re- filing of the petition.
2. The Impugned Award is dated 30.11.2017. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) on 26.02.2018, that is, within the period of limitation. The same was returned back to the counsel for the petitioner with certain office objections on 28.02.2018. The petition was thereafter re-filed on 16.04.2018 resulting in delay of 43 days in re-filing of the petition.
3. The petitioner has stated the cause for the delay as under:
"3. It is submitted that immediately after receipt of the petition from the registry, the clerk of the counsel left for his hometown on account of Holi and returned only after 10 days i.e. during the second week of March 2018.
4. It is submitted that even though the counsel for the Petitioner was in the process of curing the defects, the clerk of the Petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from fungal infection on his face. As the infection had also caused facial swelling, the clerk again remained on leave on March 15 to 22nd. Thereafter, the office of the Petitioner's counsel got shifted on March 28th from 1207, Chiranjiv Tower, Nehru Place to its present location. The process of shifting took considerable time due to which the petition could not be re- filed. The counsel for the Petitioner tenders unconditional apology in curing the defects and re-filing the petition."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay in re-filing of the petition should not be condoned as Section 34(3) of the Act provides for strict timeline for filing of the petition and keeping in view the mandate of the legislature, equally strict standard should be adopted while considering the delay in re-filing of the petition. He places reliance on the judgment dated 29.07.2013 of this Court in OMP No.209/2013 titled Union of India v. Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. and of the Supreme Court in H.Dohil Constructions Co. P. Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd. and another, (2015) 1 SCC 680.
5. He further submits that in the copy of the application supplied by the petitioner to the respondent in compliance with Section 34(5) of the Act, only paragraph 3 quoted hereinabove was mentioned as a cause for delay. Therein also, the period was mentioned as 20 days instead of 10 days as is now mentioned in the application filed before this Court. He submits that therefore, the petitioner is improving its case and making incorrect submissions.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. In the present case, the petition was filed within the period of limitation. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has made any substantial changes in the petition. The reasons given by the petitioner as cause for the delay appear to be genuine and in any case, not attributable to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the same.
7. Though, it may be correct that keeping in view the mandate of Section 34(3) of the Act, a strict view has to be taken even while considering the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing of the petition, in the present case, I find the cause given by the petitioner to be sufficient to condone the delay.
8. In view of the above, the delay in re-filing of the petition is condoned.
The application stands allowed.
O.M.P. (COMM) 205/2018 Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the reply. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter.
List on 12th April, 2019.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2019/Arya