Delhi High Court - Orders
Govt. Of Nct Delhi vs M/S Gawar Construction Limited on 30 April, 2024
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 352/2022 & I.As. 13415/2022, 13417-
13418/2022
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Panwar, Advocate with
Mr. Gurcharan Singh, A.E. PWD.
versus
M/S GAWAR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepender Hooda, Mr. A.S.
Tiwari, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 30.04.2024
1. The petition is pending for issuance of notice. The respondent has raised a contention that the filing of the petition before this Court is barred by limitation as the original filing on 28.05.2022 was non-est.
2. Mr. Deepender Hooda, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of this submission, contends that the original filing was without a Statement of Truth ["SoT"], the petition was signed by the petitioner's representative only at one place, the vakalatnama was not filed and was not signed by the petitioner's representative or counsel, and that the number of pages in the petition increased dramatically in the course of refilling of the petition from 150 to approximately 800.
3. The question of whether non-filing of a SoT renders the filing non-
O.M.P. (COMM) 352/2022 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2024 at 21:30:47 est has been referred to a Full Bench by order dated 21.03.2025 in O.M.P. (COMM) 20/2024 [Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited]. That question will have to await the answer of the Full Bench.
4. As far as the other aspects are concerned, I am of the view that they do not raise a question of non-est filing: -
a. In the present case, the petition was admittedly signed by the petitioner's representative at the end of the petition, but each page was not signed as required under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Mr. Hooda draws my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Planetcast Technologies Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine Del 8490] (paragraph Nos. 47-51) to submit that the petition would be rendered non-est as a result. I am of the view that the said judgment is distinguishable, inasmuch as the case before the Division Bench was one where the petition was not signed at all. In the present case, the petition has been signed at the end, indicating the petitioner's ownership or responsibility for its contents. b. As far as the vakalatnama is concerned, it may be noted that the petition has been filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi ["GNCTD"]. It was accompanied by a Brief Transmission Form ["BTF"] issued by GNCTD, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs in favour of learned counsel for the petitioner. The BTF was digitally signed by the officer of GNCTD and is dated 20.05.2022, proximate to the date of filing of the petition. Mr. Hooda points out that the case number mentioned in the BTF is O.M.P. (COMM) 352/2022 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2024 at 21:30:47 "APPEAL(CIVIL) NA" and the title is "M/S GAWAR CONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs. PWD, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI".
Mr. Arun Panwar, learned counsel for GNCTD, states that the BTF is not required to be signed by the counsel as counsel have already been engaged as Standing Counsel/Panel Counsel on behalf of GNCTD. I am of the view that the defect in the case categorisation and the title are also inadequate to render a finding that the filing itself was invalid in the eyes of law. The cause title has evidently been taken from the award itself. The error as to case categorisation was, in my view, rectifiable.
c. Mr. Hooda also points out that the number of pages in the filing have increased, but he very fairly accepts that the contents of the pleadings itself were not substantially altered in the process of refiling. In such circumstances, it appears that the volume of the brief has increased due to the addition of documents and arbitral record. The petition cannot be rendered non-est on this account.
5. The only question which remains for consideration on this aspect is whether non-filing of the SoT, with the original petition (which is factually accepted by Mr. Panwar), would render the petition non-est. On this aspect, to await the decision of the Full Bench, list on 20.08.2024 in the category of "Fresh Matters and Applications".
6. Learned counsel for the parties are also requested to be ready to argue on the merits of the petition on the next date of hearing, if called upon to do so.
PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 30, 2024/'Bhupi'/ O.M.P. (COMM) 352/2022 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2024 at 21:30:47