Delhi District Court
Baldev Singh & Another vs . Citi Financial Consumer Finance India ... on 31 March, 2015
Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE05,
ROOM NO. 605, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
ARB No. 143/14
Case ID No. 02406C0283762013
1. Baldev Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Saran,
2. Paramjit Kaur
W/o Sh. Baldev Singh
Both
R/o D65, Ajay Enclave,
Near Ajanta Cinema,
New Delhi110018.
.............Petitioners
Versus
Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.
(Earlier Known as Associates India Financial
Services Ltd.)
Registered Office at:
3 LSC, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi110062.
..............Respondent
Date of Institution : 10.10.2013
Date of reserving the Judgment : Oral
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2015
Decision : Dismissed
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT FOR QUASHINGSETTING ASIDE THE AWARD
DATED 18TH JULY, 2005 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR SHRI
RATAN KUMAR SINGH IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN
CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. VERSUS BALDEV
SINGH & ANOTHER
ARB No.143/14 Page 1 of 9
Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will decide the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. Application was filed along with objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking condonation of delay in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Arguments on the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay read with other provisions of Limitation Act were heard.
3. It is stated in the application that earlier on 24.10.2005 petitioners/applicants had filed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for quashing/setting aside the award dated 18.07.2005 passed by the Sole Arbitrator before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi. Vide order dated 25.03.2013, Sh. V. K. Jha, Learned Civil Judge10, Delhi has held that the court of civil judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and accordingly, same was directed to be returned to the petitioners/applicants. It is stated in the application that applicants/petitioners had no knowledge about the said order and they were informed by their counsel Ms. Kavita Arora, with assurance that she would look into the matter and would present the same before the competent court of District Judge. The said advocate was contesting the other cases of the applicants/petitioners but she was not appearing in those cases, ARB No.143/14 Page 2 of 9 Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd hence the applicants/petitioners were compelled to withdraw their cases from her and on 06.08.2013, she returned the files to them. Thereafter, on 16.08.2013 applicants/petitioners moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 (A) read with Section 151 CPC for return of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hobn'ble Civil Judge, Sh. V. K. Jha, who dismissed the said application. Applicants/petitioners requested the ahlmad of that court to return the petition but he stated that since the file had already been consigned to record room and as such he cannot return the petition/application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to them.
4. It is further stated that applicants/petitioners immediately moved one application before the Incharge, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for return of application and date of 18.09.2013 was given. On 18.09.2013, they came to know that their application was presented before the Judge Incharge, Record Room on 17.09.2013 and same was dismissed in default due to none appearance on behalf of applicants/petitioners. Again on 03.10.2013, they moved another application before Learned Judge Incharge, Record Room which was also dismissed on the ground that Judge Incharge was having only the administrative powers and endorsement was required on petition on judicial side, and hence the application/petition could not have been returned by him. Applicants/petitioners having no other option again moved an application before Learned Civil Judge Sh. V. K. Jha on 05.10.2013, who vide order dated 07.10.013 called the original file and returned the application under Section 34 of the ARB No.143/14 Page 3 of 9 Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the applicants/petitioners. Petitioners, accordingly, refiled the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent court of District & Sessions Judge on 09.10.2013.
5. Vide this application, applicants/petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application and excluding the time from 24.10.2005 to 09.10.2013 under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
6. During the course of arguments, Learned Sh. Singhal has emphasized on following documents:
1. Order dated 25.03.2013 through which Learned Civil Judge directed return of application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to petitioners.
2. Application under Order VII Rule 10 (A) CPC filed by applicants/petitioners before Sh. V. K. Jha, Learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 16.08.2013
2. Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by Learned Civil Judge on that application.
3. Application filed on 16.09.2013 before the Learned Judge Incharge, Record Room for return of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Order passed by Learned Judge Incharge, Record Room on 17.09.2013 upon the above application.
5. Another application filed before the Learned Jude Incharge, Record Room on 24.09.2013.
6. Order passed by Learned Judge Incharge, Record ARB No.143/14 Page 4 of 9 Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd Room upon that application on 03.10.2013.
7. Another application again filed before Learned Civil Judge on 05.10.2013.
8. Order passed by Learned Civil Judge on above application on 07.10.2013.
7. He submits that after order dated 07.10.2013, the objections were refiled by the petitioners before the Learned District & Sessions Judge, South on 09.10.2013.
8. Learned counsel for defendant emphasized on Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stipulates the time for filing of objections for setting aside the arbitral award which reads as follows:
"Section 34 Application for setting aside arbitral award. (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."
9. It is submitted by him that proviso 2 of the Section stipulates that the court can extend the time for filing the ARB No.143/14 Page 5 of 9 Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd objections for a period of 30 days in addition to the time of 3 months but not thereafter. He submits that provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable when Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has clarified that the time of limitation cannot be extended beyond 30 days.
10. Learned Sh. Singhal has relied upon the judgments of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Others AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623, Jitender Kumar Gupta v. Sukhbir Singh Saini 192 (2012) Delhi Law Times 438, Wall Groser Forgings v. Murli Dhar & Others 71 (1998) Delhi Law Times 472, Union of India v. Pratap Singh and Others 59 (1995) Delhi Law Times 179, Rajender Kumar Gupta v. State & Others 180 (2011) Delhi Law Times 26 and Shyam Singh Khatri & Another v. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. 194 (2012) Delhi Law Times 673.
11. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) 2008 (2) R.A. J. 682 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of Section 14 may be available to the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
12. In the case in hand, the objections were moved by the petitioners before Learned Senior Civil Judge, who was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the objections.
13. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent that even if the period during which the objections remained pending before the Learned Civil Judge is excluded, the objections are time barred.
14. As per record, the objections were filed before the Learned ARB No.143/14 Page 6 of 9 Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd Civil Judge on 90th day. The order for return was passed by Learned Civil Judge on 25.03.2013. In the certified copy of the application filed before Learned Civil Judge on 16.08.2013, it is mentioned that after passing of order of return dated 25.03.2013, previous counsel for petitioners, Ms. Arora assured them that she would take back the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and would file the same before the competent court of District Judge. There were other matters of petitioners dealt by said Ms. Arora but she was not appearing before the concerned courts and hence, the applications/petitioners were compelled to take back the files from her. On 06.08.2013, she returned the files to the applicants/petitioners.
15. Thereafter, petitioners moved the application before the Learned Civil Judge on 16.08.2013.
16. In the opinion of the court, the period w.e.f. 25.03.2013 to 16.08.2013, cannot be condoned. From the bare reading of the application moved before the Learned Civil Judge on 16.08.2013, it can be said that order dated 25.03.2013 was passed within the knowledge of the petitioners. It was not only the duty of the previous Advocate to file the objections before the competent court of District Judge, but the petitioners were also obliged to verify that the said objections are refiled by their Advocate. For about 41/2 months the petitioners/applicants did not take any steps to verify that the objections are refiled before the competent court of District Judge or not.
17. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal ARB No.143/14 Page 7 of 9 Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd Secretary (Irrigation Department) (Supra), though provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were held to be applicable while computing the limitation period for filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to such petitions. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for exclusion of time during which the arbitration petition remained pending before the Learned Sr. Civil Judge or Civil Judge. But the petitioners cannot claim the condonation of delay for about 41/2 months for the period when he or his counsel did not take any steps for return of the petition and/or its refiling before the competent court of District Judge.
18. It is important to mention here that under Section 34 of the Act, the application for setting aside an arbitral award may not be made after 3 months. If the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of 3 months, the court has the power to entertain the application within a further period of 30 days. The section itself clarifies that thereafter the court has no power to entertain the application. In the case in hand, the petition was initially filed before the Learned Sr. Civil Judge almost on expiry of 3 months. Thereafter, after the order of return of the same, the total period of 41/2 months was taken by petitioners which is even beyond the total period of 3 months plus 30 days available under Section 34 (3) of the Act. In view of the expressed bar upon the court to entertain the petition after that period, the application is liable to be dismissed.
ARB No.143/14 Page 8 of 9Baldev Singh & Another vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd
19. Accordingly, the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is disposed off with the observation that the period w.e.f. 24.10.2005 to 25.03.2013 is condoned. However, the prayer for condonation of delay for remaining period w.e.f. 26.03.2013 to 09.10.2014 is declined.
20. The objections filed by the petitioners are beyond the limitation period and are dismissed as such.
21. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (AJAY PANDEY)
Court on 31.03.2015 ADJ05 (SOUTH DISTRICT)
(Judgment contains 9 pages) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
ARB No.143/14 Page 9 of 9