Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2332
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Crest Education (P) Ltd.
Versus
Career Launcher (I) Ltd.
O.M.P. No. 201 of 2013 & IA No. 3467 of 2013
Decided on : 31-10-2014
For the Petitioner:Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Rajat Malhotra, Ojasvi Khaneja, Advocates.
For the Respondent:D.K. Sharma, O.S. Punia, Advocates.
The judgment established the importance of strict compliance with time limits, the requirement to pay court fees, and the need for reasonableness in judging delays in re-filing petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules Relating to Proceedings in High Court of Delhi, Chapter –I, Judicial Business, Part-A(a) Rule 5(1). The court emphasized the strict interpretation of the time limits for filing objections and re-filing petitions, and the requirement to pay court fees. The court also highlighted the practical challenges faced by counsels in addressing objections and the need for reasonableness in judging delays.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought condonation of delay in re-filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent opposed the application, citing non-compliance with rules and objections raised by the registry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in re-filing was caused by the registry's failure to raise objections at once, and most objections were not of a nature to render the petition inherently flawed. The court also noted the unique procedure adopted by the petitioner's counsel in amending the petition without court direction.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in re-filing the petition, compliance with rules and objections raised by the registry, and the unique procedure adopted by the petitioner's counsel in amending the petition without court direction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the strict interpretation of time limits for filing objections and re-filing petitions, the requirement to pay court fees, and the need for reasonableness in judging delays. The court also highlighted the practical challenges faced by counsels in addressing objections.
Final Decision: The court granted the condonation of delay with costs of Rs. 20,000, emphasizing that the delay was caused by the registry's failure to raise objections at once and the objections were not of a nature to render the petition inherently flawed. The court also imposed costs due to the unique procedure adopted by the petitioner's counsel in amending the petition without court direction.
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
IA No. 3467 of 2013 (condonation of delay in re-filing)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petition. Notice in this application was issued on 01.03.2013. Since then pleadings have been completed in the captioned application. The relief sought in the application is opposed by the respondent. Briefly, for the purposes of disposal of this application, following dates and events need to be noted.
2. The award, which is impugned by the petitioner, and which is subject matter of the main petition, is dated 18.08.2012. The said award was served on the petitioner on 24.08.2012. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act), was filed on 22.11.2012. Therefore, the initial filing was within the period of 90 days as provided in the 1996 Act.
3. The record shows that on 23.11.2012 seven (7) objections were raised by the registry, whereupon the main petition was received back by the counsel for the petitioner on 24.11.2012. The petition was re-filed after removal of objections on 29.11.2012. On 29.11.2012, one of the objections raised by the registry was that amount awarded ought to be mentioned, and the, requisite court fee be paid accordingly, at the rate of 1%. Notably, this objection was set out as item no. 8 in the objection note of the registry. Furthermore, the aforementioned objection was similar to objection no.4 raised by the registry on 23.11.2012.
4. Evidently on 04.12.2012, the petitioner once again received the main petition with objections. According to the petitioner, after removing the objections, the petition was re-filed on 10.12.2012. It appears that, the registry raised yet another objection which was referred to as objection no. 9, whereby it directed filing of the original award. The reason for raising this objection was that the signature of the arbitrator were appended in black ink, and that, the registry was finding it difficult to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the award filed was the original award. The counsel for the petitioner, apparently, retrieved the petition with objections on 04.01.2013. After rendering relevant explanation to the concerned officer in the registry, the petition was re-filed on 15.01.2013.
5. It appears, that thereafter, the registry raised nine (9) objections on 16.01.2013, some of which formed subject matter of objections raised on 23.11.2012. Consequently, the petition was taken back on 07.02.2013. Simultaneously, it appears that the petitioner wrote to his clients that it should arrange necessary funds for payment of court fee in the matter. The court fee, evidently, was purchased on 26.02.2013, and thus, the petition along with the court fee was re-filed on 27.02.2013. The delay in re-filing is, therefore, obtaining between the period dated 23.11.2012 and 26.02.2013. It is this period, which the petitioner seeks condonation of delay.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application on the following grounds:
(i) That under the Rules Relating to Proceedings in High Court of Delhi (Vol. V of Delhi High Court Rules and Orders), Chapter –I, Judicial Business, Part-A(a) Rule 5(1), a petition returned on account of objections raised by the registry has to be re-filed within the time not exceeding seven (7) days at a time and thirty (30) days in the aggregate. In case the petition is filed beyond the time prescribed above [i.e., in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5], then the petition would have to be considered as a “fresh institution”. The petition in the present case was re-filed on 27.02.2013, after a delay of nearly 97 days. In other words, the re-filing was beyond the period prescribed under the aforementioned rules.
(ii) The period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act for filing objections is three (3) months, and in case of delay, within a maximum period of thirty (30) days thereafter – this period being sacrosanct, any delay in
