Important Point—The language of beneficial provision contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally so as to suppress the mischief and advance its object. The provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

1. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

2. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, (for short, “The Arbitration (Amendment) Act”), whereby challenge is made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6th October, 2016, thereby after considering the rival submissions in the facts and circumstances of the case, by allowing the notice of motion in Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, condoned the delay of 129 days, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent. The said amount was accordingly paid and accepted by the Respondent.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised basic submissions that in view of mandate of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, there is no question of exercising jurisdiction of condoning the delay of this nature, though the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is extended for condoning the delay on the foundation of sufficient cause stated to be shown by them. The filing of the first Arbitration Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in Delhi Court itself was not “Bonafide” and therefore, also exclusion so available under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, could not have been extended in the present case.

4. The relevant events as per the synopsis are as under :

(i) On 25.02.2014, the impugned order was passed. On 28.02.2014, vide email dated 28.02.2014 the United Exchange of India Limited informed the petitioner about the passing of the impugned award and informed that the original award will be sent as soon as possible. On 10.03.2014, the petitioner receive the copy of original award.

(ii) On 21.05.2014, the petitioner had filed the Arbitration Petition being Arbitration Appeal No.331 of 2014 before the District Judge, Patiala House Court, Delhi. On 28.10.2014, the Respondent appeared in the said petition. On 17.09.2015, the petition was directed to be returned with liberty to file afresh in the court of appropriate jurisdiction.

(iii) On 24.09.2015, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the entire file of the said petition and the documents and the proceedings. On 01.12.2015, the certified copy of the said petition got ready.

(iv) On 02.12.2015, the lawyer of the petitioner at Delhi received the certified copy of the entire petition and the petitioner got it collected from his office on 7.12.2015. On 08.12.2015, the certified copy of the petition was sent by the petitioner to its Lawyer at Mumbai. On 09.12.2015, the lawyer of the petitioner at Delhi sent the soft copy of the petition to the lawyer at Mumbai for amending the petition according to format as per original side rules of Bombay High Court. On 18.12.2015, the Mumbai Lawyer asked the petitioner through email to prepare a synopsis in the case for submission alongwith the petition. On 22.12.2015, the petitioner prepared a synopsis as suggested by the Lawyer at Mumbai and sent the same through email to her. On 23.12.2015 to 04.01.2016, the Bombay High Court was on vacation. On 29.12.2015, the petitioner reminds the lawyer at Mumbai through email that the petition should be filed within time.

(v) On 04.01.2016, after returning from vacation, the Lawyer at Mumbai sent the petition alongwith Vakalatnama in the format prescribed by Original Side Rules of Mumbai High Court. On 07.01.2016, the petitioner sent the petition alongwith vakalatnama duly signed to the lawyer at Mumbai.

(vi) On 11.01.2016, the Lawyer at Delhi advises Lawyer at Mumbai to add one paragraph relating to limitation in the petition. The petitioner took the fresh print out of the petition and sent the same to his lawyer at Mumbai. The lawyer at Mumbai prepared requisite sets of the petition along documents. On 20.01.2016, the petitioner filed the petition before the High Court at Bombay.

All the necessary emails and the correspondence are part of the record.

5. The relevant provisio