Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs M/S. Ved Prakash Arora & Anr. on 31 May, 2016
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 267/2016
Decided on: 31st May, 2016
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Arora, Advocate
versus
M/S. VED PRAKASH ARORA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.21708/2016 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception. Application stands disposed of.
FAO 267/2016 and CM APPL.21709/2016 (delay) & CM APPL. 21707/2016 (stay)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Union of India under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional District FAO 267/2016 Page 1 of 5 Judge, Delhi dismissing the objections of the appellant against the award dated 27.09.2013 (later corrected to 08.11.2013).
2. Along with the appeal, there is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The said application has sought condonation of 362 days delay in filing of the appeal. The reason given for condonation of delay are that there was an ambiguity in the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 and therefore, it resulted in delay in as much as they first filed CM (Main). Though the applicability of Section of the Limitation Act to arbitration proceedings itself is debatable but without going into that question even if the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is considered on merits, it is bereft of any ground. Even if there was an ambiguity in the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned ADJ the only remedy which was available under the statute to the appellant was to file an appeal under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. It is not understandable who advised the appellant that instead of filing an appeal at the earliest against the rejection of its objections by the learned ADJ under Section 34 of the Act the appellant should FAO 267/2016 Page 2 of 5 prefer the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even this CM (Main) is purported to have been dismissed on 25.01.2016 and court has taken note of the fact that the appeal was filed almost after expiry of one year for which no justification was given. It seems that the officials of the appellant were in league with the claimant/respondent and they were never sincere and diligent to prosecute the appropriate remedy, so as to challenge the rejection of their objections. It seems that they only wanted a seal of legitimation and wanted to complete the paper work.
3. I feel that this is a very serious matter and the person who was competent to take the decision as to whether appeal was to be filed against the objections or not and at what stage the file travelled and where deserves to be inquired into so as to fix the responsibility. This is high time that the officials of the government must pull up their socks and act with due diligence as it amounts to the loss of time and money to the government of India. The law of limitation equally applies to both the Union of India as well as to the private parties. It may also be pertinent here to mention that the objections under Section 34 of the Act have to be filed within a period of 90 FAO 267/2016 Page 3 of 5 days which is extendable maximum by another 30 days. If the objections under Section 34 of the Act have to be filed within maximum period of 120 days, it is not understandable as to how the appeal can be filed beyond the period of 120 days. I, therefore, feel that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the fact of the case is that it was only a ploy to get a seal of legitimation. The matter needs inquiry.
4. I, therefore, direct that the copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence with the request that he should direct the competent authority to hold an inquiry and fix the responsibility as to what was the reason for not filing the appeal against the rejection of their objections by the trial court against the award within the prescribed period. If any misconduct or lapse is found on the part of any official of the appellant, then appropriate departmental action shall also be initiated against him/her.
5. The entire process of holding inquiry as well as fixation of responsibility shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and the concerned Chief Engineer of the appellant shall file an Affidavit stating the outcome FAO 267/2016 Page 4 of 5 of the said inquiry and the fixation of responsibility with the Registrar General of this Court. The file may be placed before the Registrar General after the expiry of three months.
6. However, so far as appeal is concerned, the same is dismissed as barred by time.
7. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, no orders on the stay applications are called for.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 31, 2016 vk FAO 267/2016 Page 5 of 5