Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: arbitration, section 34 in Baldev Singh & Another vs . Citi Financial Consumer Finance India ... on 31 March, 2015Matching Fragments
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, 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 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.
17. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal 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.