Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Akashdeep Cold Storage Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited And Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).1427-1428 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 29784-29785 of 2024)
Decided on : 03-02-2025
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Dismissal of arbitration petition - Application for restoration denied - High Court failed to consider non-service of notice and blame on the appellant for delayed proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, reinstating the arbitration petition and addressing the obligation of the parties to appear before the High Court. (Paras 3-4)
(B) Procedural fairness - It is established that a litigant should not be penalized for delays not attributable to them, and in absence of service, dismissal for non-prosecution was deemed improper. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's arbitration petition was dismissed in default despite non-service of notice and was subsequently denied restoration by the High Court, which wrongly attributed the delay to the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found merit in reinstating the arbitration petition, reinforcing the principle of fairness in legal proceedings.
Issues: The court addressed the issues regarding the improper dismissal of the arbitration petition without proper notice and the wrongful attribution of blame to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that litigants should not suffer due to procedural irregularities and that non-service of notice invalidates any dismissal for non-prosecution.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's duty regarding notice and non-prosecution. (Para 3) |
| 2. restoration of arbitration petition granted. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. An arbitration petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in default. By the impugned order, an application for restoration has also been dismissed. On a perusal of the impugned order, two facts stare at the face. The High Court notes that on 15th September, 2023, the Court issued a notice to the appellant which was not served. Even though the notice was not served, the arbitration petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10th November, 2023. The second thing which stares at the face is the observation made in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. The High Court has blamed the appellant for keeping the petition filed in October 2019 pending. The High Court observed that the appellant did not file an application for early hearing. If a proceeding before the Court of law gets delayed for no fault on the part of the litigant, the Court cannot find fault with the litigant on the ground that he did not apply for early hearing.
4. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The applications for condonation of delay and restoration are allowed.
Accordingly, Arbitration Petition No. 139/2019 is restored to the file of the High Court of Gujarat. The restored Petition shall be listed before the roster Bench of the High Court on 28th February, 2025 in the morning. The parties before this Court will be under an obligation to appear before the roster Bench on that day and no further notice shall be served upon them.
5. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Gujarat who shall ensure that the restored Petition is listed before the roster Bench as directed above.
6. The Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms.
