Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Vikal Bhadana vs Director M/S L & T Finance Ltd on 8 February, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SH UMED SINGH GREWAL
  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­02 (WEST),
       TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


Arbtn. No. 39/15


Vikal Bhadana
S/o Shri Samay Singh Bhadana
R/o House no. 1574, Dabua Colony,
Faridabad ( Haryana)

                                                            ......Applicant

                                   Versus

   1. Director M/s L & T Finance Ltd.
      Regd. Office: L & T House,
      Billard Estate, Mumbai

   2. M/s L & T. Finance Ltd.
      Authorised Signatory
      Regd. Office: L & T House
      Ballard Estate, Mumbai

   3. M/s L & T Finance Ltd.
      Corporate Office: 3­B, Laxmi Towers,
      C­25, 'G' Block,
      Bandra Kurla Complex
      Bandra, Mumbai

   4. Regional office also at:
      DLF Industrial Area, Main Najafgarh Road,
      Near Moti Nagar Metro Station, Moti Nagar,
      New Delhi
      Address of Abitrator:



Arbtn. No.39/2015   Vikal Bhadana Vs Director L & T Finance Ltd. & Ors.   Page 1 of 5
         Bharat B Jain, Advocate, District Cant Bomaby
        Room no. 5, Shrinagar, Bridge, Bomaby,
        Near Canara Bank, Kurla, Mumbai


                                                      ....Respondents

Date of institution of the case :                                  22.07.2015
Date reserved for judgment      :                                  05.01.2022
Date of pronouncement of Judgment:                                 08.02.2022

                                    ORDER

1. This order shall decide an application of the respondents u/s 34 (3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for rejection of the petition.

2. Ld. Counsel for applicant argued that petition under section 34 of the Act has to be filed within 3 months of the date of receipt of arbitral award by the petitioner. It may be entertained within further period of 30 days but not thereafter, if the petitioner satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from moving the petition. He further submitted that provisions of section 34 (3) are absolute and hence, the time limit prescribed therein is also absolute and cannot be extended by the court under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this regard, he relied (1) Union of India v. Popular Construction 2001(8) SCC 470 and (2) Union of India v. Uttam Singh Duggal 198(2013) DLT 62A (CN).

The counsel further argued that the impugned award was passed on 16.05.2011 and was sent to petitioner as well as co-

borrower/guarantor by way of registered post on or around 11.06.2011. The acknowledgment duly signed was received back in respect of the award sent to the petitioner. The envelope sent to guarantor was received back with the remarks "refusal" and that also amounts to service. Due to service of the award around 11.06.2011, the petition was required to filed within three months thereof but it has been filed in April 2015 and hence, it is barred by period of limitation.

The counsel next argued that the petitioner has falsely alleged in para 3 of the petition that he did not get copy of the award as the same had been sent to him in June 2011 itself. His demand notice dated 07.01.2013 sent to Arbitrator for sending him arbitral award, is malafide. But the said notice shows that he had come to know at least on the date of notice i.e 7.01.2013 that an award had been passed against him and despite it he filed the petition after more than two and half years thereof.

Last argument is that the petitioner has himself placed on record certified copy of the award obtained by him from the executing court on 05.12.2012. So, on that day i.e 5.12.2012, he had received the copy of award but he filed the petition in July 2015 and hence, it is clearly barred by period of limitation.

3. On the other hand, it is mentioned in reply that the present application is akin to an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC for which there is no provision in the Act. It is next mentioned that the arbitrator did not send him award and that is why he had to send him notices on 07.01.2013, 05.04.2013 and 20.09.2013. Despite receipt of those notices, the copy of award was not sent Arbtn. No.39/2015 Vikal Bhadana Vs Director L & T Finance Ltd. & Ors. Page 3 of 5 to him due to which he could not prefer objections under section 34 of the Act earlier.

4. Bare perusal of provision of 34(3) of the Act makes it clear that the petition under that section is to be filed within three months on receipt of award by the petitioner. That period may be extended for another 30 days if the petitioner satisfies the court that there was sufficient reason for not filing the petition earlier.

5. There is no substance in the plea of the petitioner that there is no provision for moving this kind of application because it is crystal clearly mentioned in section 34 (3) of the Act that the petition is to be filed within three months. Vide present application, the respondents' demand is that the court should decide whether the petition was within the period of limitation or barred by it and hence, the said application is maintainable under section 34 (3) of the Act.

6. The respondents had sent co-borrower/guarantor an envelope which was received with the endorsement "refused" and the envelope is bearing the date as 18.06.2011. But this court is not concerned with the guarantor/co-borrower because the petition has not been filed by him but it has been filed by the borrower who is Mr. Vikal Bhadana.

The envelope accompanied by acknowledgment card sent to the petitioner has been placed on record suggesting that the envelope with which the acknowledgment card was sent, had been delivered to the addressee. No date is mentioned on the Arbtn. No.39/2015 Vikal Bhadana Vs Director L & T Finance Ltd. & Ors. Page 4 of 5 acknowledgment card. Also, it bears the signature of a person namely Deepak and it is not known to the court whether said Deepak is related to petitioner or not and hence, the said acknowledgment card cannot be taken as proof of sending of award to the petitioner.

7. But it is mentioned in para no. 3 of the petition that after coming to know from execution proceedings, the petitioner sent letters dated 07.01.2013, 05.04.2013 and 20.09.2013 to the Arbitrator to send him copy of award. So, the petitioner was aware, as least, on 07.01.2013 that an award had been passed against him.

It is mentioned in para 8 of "the facts of the case" that the petitioner came to know in July 2012 that the respondents had obtained an ex-parte award. That para prepones the date of knowledge of award to the petitioner to July 2012.

Alongwith petition, attested copy of the award has been annexed. Last page of the award shows that he had moved an application on 30.11.12 for taking attested copy of the award and copy of award was delivered on 05.12.2012. So, on 05.12.2012, the petitioner had come into possession of the copy of the award. But he filed the petition on 22.07.2015 and hence, it is clearly hit by the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act.

8. In view of above discussion, the application is allowed.

Announced in the open court                        (Umed Singh Grewal)
On 8th February 2022                                 Addl. District Judge
                                                       West­02: Delhi


 Arbtn. No.39/2015   Vikal Bhadana Vs Director L & T Finance Ltd. & Ors.   Page 5 of 5
 Present:

                Vide separate order of the even date, the

application of respondents under section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking rejection of the petition is allowed and consequently, petition is dismissed. File be consigned to record room. Arbitral record be sent back.