The Chairman And Managing Director, vs Mallikarjun Shetteppa S/O Shetteppa on 18 October, 2012

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Chairman And Managing Director, vs Mallikarjun Shetteppa S/O Shetteppa on 18 October, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

      DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

       WRIT PETITION NO. 67170/2011 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

1.    THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
      HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
      NO. 17, JAMSHEDTJI TATA ROAD,
      MUMBAI-400 020.

2.    THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,
      HUBLI LPG REGIONAL OFFICE,
      HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
      NO. 165/166, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
      BELUR, DHARWAD.                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

MALLIKARJUN SHETTEPPA S/O SHETTEPPA
AGE: 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,
SHRI. GANESH AGENCIES, H.P. GAS DEALER,
(TERMINATED), ASHWINI, NO. 329,
2ND A MAIN, 4TH CROSS, NARAYANPUR,
DHARWAD.                                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P R BENTUR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED IN A.S. NO.9/2010 DATED:04/07/2011 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                                2




DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DISMISS THE I.A.NO.1 AND
ALSO ARBITRATION SUIT NO.9/2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Respondents in A.S.No.9/2010 before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad aggrieved by the Order dt. 4.7.2011 Annexure-E allowing IA-I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in preferring the Arbitration suit, have presented this petition.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned, indisputably the respondent questioned the arbitration award by filing a writ petition which was dismissed and against which Writ Appeal when filed was also dismissed, whereafterwards the Arbitration Suit was filed with an application to condone the delay.

3. Although learned counsel for the petitioners submits that IA-I ought to have been under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the application had to be 3 rejected. I am afraid is unacceptable. The wrong mentioning of the provision of law cannot disentitle the party to the relief if the authority is invested with a jurisdiction under the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

4. Since it is the case of the petitioner that Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay, the Prl.District and Sessions Judge having been invested with the jurisdiction to condone the delay, the order impugned does not call for interference. Exercise of discretion by the District and Sessions Judge in accepting the explanation offered by the respondent over the delay cannot be found fault with.

The petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE ln.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court