Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunlight Project Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 August, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2021 & I.A.1681/2021.
SUNLIGHT PROJECT PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Khemka, Mr. Rishi Sehgal
and Mr. Midhun Aggarwal,
Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 18.08.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
I.A. -----/2021 (for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing)
1. The Registry is directed to number the application. The Petitioner filed the petition within limitation, through e-filing mode, on 14th December, 2020. The Registry marked certain objections on 15th December, 2020. After removing the objections, the petition was refiled on 22nd December, 2020. Further objections were raised by the Registry, which the Petitioner could not remove within time, owing to illness of the family members of the counsel for the Petitioner, who were hospitalised on account of COVID-19 (coronavirus). This resulted in a delay of three days in re-filing.
2. In view of the foregoing, the delay in re-filing the present petition is condoned, the application is allowed.
I.A. 1680/2021 (exemption from filing the true typed copies of illegible, handwritten documents and dim documents)
3. The application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
4. The Petitioner shall file the true typed copies of documents which are illegible, handwritten or dim and on which it seeks to place reliance, at least one week prior to the next date of hearing.
5. The application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2021
6. Re-notify on 8th October, 2021.
7. Parties are directed to file brief notes of submissions, not exceeding five pages, along with relevant caselaw, if any, at least one week before the next date of hearing. Copy thereof also be sent to the learned Court Master via e-mail, within the same timeline. The written submissions should concisely indicate the following: (i) the exact dispute before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, (ii) the claims in respect of which the Petitioner is aggrieved, (iii) the decision as well as the reasoning of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, qua such claims, with reference to the relevant para and page numbers of the impugned award, and (iv) why the decision of the learned Arbitral Tribunal merits/does not merit interference, in view of Section 34 of the Act and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in respect to each ground of challenge raised.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 18, 2021 v