Bombay High Court
Cipla Limited vs Ashoka Buildcon Limited on 22 September, 2022
Author: C.V. Bhadang
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
13-ial-24245-2022 in carbpl-24234-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 24245 OF 2022
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L)NO.24234 OF 2022
Cipla Limited ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Cipla Limited ...Petitioner
V/s.
Ashoka Buildcon Limited ...Respondent
----
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA
AMAR
AMAR
KALE
Date:
Mr. Soli Cooper, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Yehan Cooper, Ms. Iesha
KALE 2022.09.23
10:51:36
+0530
Sinha, Mr. Aayesh Gandhi, Ms. Bhindi Dave i/b. Wadia Ghandy
& Co., for the Applicants / Petitioners.
Mr. Anirudha A. Garge, for the Respondent.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 22 SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. . This is an application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused record.
Mamta Kale page 1 of 4 13-ial-24245-2022 in carbpl-24234-2022.doc
3. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the award was passed on 20 March 2022 and a signed copy of the award was received on 14 April 2022. It is submitted that the present application alongwith petition under Section 34 of the said Act came to be filed on 27 July 2022 resulting into 13 days delay, which is within 30 days provided beyond the period of three months within which a request for condonation of delay can be considered. It is submitted that there was a change of an Advocate and in the meantime, the papers were misplaced and there is no negligence on the part of the Applicant in failure to challenge the award, within time.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the application. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer Vs. M/s. Tenzing Construction 1, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in National Authority of India through Project Director Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors.2, the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. M. Kumaresan Vs. The Arbitrator / District Collector & Ors.3 and lastly, the decision of the Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited4. It is submitted that the Applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 12022(4) R.A.J. 281 (Gau) 2Arbitration Appeal No.6/2019 decided on 18/3/2021 3C.R.P. (NPD) No.1955/ 2017 decided on 9/8/2017 4O.M.P. (Comm) No.518/2020 decided on 15/2/2021 Mamta Kale page 2 of 4 13-ial-24245-2022 in carbpl-24234-2022.doc
5. I have considered the submissions made.
6. In the present case, according to the Applicants, on account of the change of the Advocate and in the interregnum, on account of the fact that the papers were misplaced, the delay has occasioned. The circumstances do not indicate that there was any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the Applicants in failure to file petition under Section 34, within time.
7. The Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. 5, after taking survey of several decisions holding the field has culled out the principles which are germane, while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court has inter alia held that in a case of delay of short duration-as in the present case-the Court can take a liberal view and there is no presumption that the delay is intentional. No party stands to gain, by approaching the Court late.
8. The decisions on which reliance is placed on behalf of the Respondent, in my opinion, turned on their own facts. In Tenzing Construction (supra), the issue was whether the Union of India can claim any special privilege in seeking condonation of delay. The Gauhati High Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Postmaster (General) Vs. Living Media 5(2013) 12 SCC 649 Mamta Kale page 3 of 4 13-ial-24245-2022 in carbpl-24234-2022.doc India Ltd.6 has held that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including Government. In National Authority of India (supra), the party had moved to the Arbitrator under Section 33 of the said Act which is not a case in the present petition.
9. In the case of Dr. M. Kumaresan (supra), the award passed under the provisions of National Highway Act, was sought to be challenged wherein there was a delay of 175 days. It was in these circumstances, held that the delay could not be condoned beyond outer limit of 30 days after the initial period of three months.
10. In the case of Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited (supra), there was a delay of 110 days which was not condoned as it was beyond the period as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the said Act. None of these cases can come to the aid of the Respondent.
11. I find that the Applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The application is thus allowed. The delay in filing the petition, is hereby condoned. Let the petition under Section 34 of the Act, be registered, subject to removal of office objections, if any.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
6(2012) 3 SCC 563 Mamta Kale page 4 of 4