Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)Ashok Kumar Parmar vs B.D.C. Sankiila And Ors. on 6 October, 1994
6. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the dates of filing and
re-filing, held that the explanation for delay of nearly two months in
re-filing rendered by the appellant is not satisfactory. The learned
Single Judge held that there is no explanation as to why despite the
===============================================================
FAO(OS) 436/2015 Page 7 of 10
amendment to the Court Fee Statute having taken place in July 2008
itself, the petition was filed on 23.01.2013, in the first place, without
the requisite court fees. The learned Single Judge relying on the
decision in Ashok Kumar Parmar v. D.C.Sankiila : 1995 RLR 85
held that non-filing of the court fees is a substantive defect which
renders the filing itself non est. Besides that, the learned Single Judge
found that there was no explanation as to why it would take a month
to deposit the requisite court fees and nearly two months to cure the
defects and re-file the petition. As regards the delay in re-filing
between March and April, the learned Single Judge has noticed that
the explanation offered is that a practice direction was issued by this
Court requiring a soft copy of the petition to be filed and this took
some time. The learned Single Judge did not find the explanation
satisfactory and held that preparation of a soft copy of the petition, by
no stretch of imagination, could take as long as thirty days. The
learned Single Judge noticed that more than two years had passed by
which an opportunity was granted to the appellant to file an
application seeking condonation of delay. Thereafter, on 27.10.2014,
a detailed order was passed by the Court and there was sufficient time
available to the petitioner to give satisfactory explanation for the
delay. However, the Court noticed that no satisfactory explanation for
the delay has been rendered.
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Durga Construction Co. on 7 November, 2013
8. In arbitration matters, the limitation has to be strictly construed
and the parties cannot be permitted to frustrate the very purpose of the
Act. Even after the court fee was paid, the appellant took over thirty
days in removing the defects. Merely because a soft copy was
required would not take the appellant over thirty days in preparation
of a soft copy. The appellant re-filed the petition repeatedly without
curing the defects. We are in agreement with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge that the appellant has not been diligent in
pursuing the petition and has taken substantial time in removal of the
defects. No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming for the
condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petition. The
appellant has not been diligent enough and as such, cannot claim
benefits of the law as laid down in the Durga Construction (supra).
We find no infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
1