The central legal point established in the judgment is that parties must return to the same court for all subsequent proceedings related to an arbitration agreement, as mandated by Section 42 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, to avoid multifarious litigations and inconsistent orders.

IA No. 4908/2015 (for condonation of delay)

1. This is an application filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking to explain the delay of 296 days in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to challenge the Award dated 24th February, 2015 of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) in the disputes between NHAI and the Respondent, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd + SIPL (HSCL) arising out of a contract dated 18th July, 2005 for the construction of a four lane highway from KM 94.000 to KM 123.00 of Nagpur – Hyderabad section of NH-7 in the State of Maharashtra.

2. It is stated by NHAI that it received a copy of the Award dated 24th February, 2015 only on 27th February, 2015 by courier and that was the date from which the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 34 (3) of the Act commenced. Even NHAI admits that the 90 days period in terms of Section 34(3) of the Act expired on 26th May, 2015.

3. It is explained by Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the NHAI, that since the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) was based in Nagpur and the project was being implemented in Yavatmal District in Maharashtra, it was mistakenly thought by the PIU that the petition under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Award had to be filed in the District Court at Yavatmal. It is pointed out that the said Court in Yavatmal was closed for summer vacation from 5th May, 2015 to 7th June, 2015 and immediately upon reopening of the court, the petition was filed on 8th June, 2015 and thus it was within the limitation period of three months. It is then stated that the matter was pending in that Court till 11th March, 2016 on which date the District Court at Yavatmal issued directions to the effect that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Included in the documents filed with the present petition is a copy of the order dated 11th March, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Yavatmal to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to decide the said application, which would have to be returned to NHAI for presenting it to the court of proper jurisdiction. The question of limitation was kept open.

4. It is stated that within five days of the said order the present petition was filed in this Court on 16th March, 2016. Referring to Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is submitted that the time spent in the District Court at Yavatmal should be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation and if so computed there would be no delay in filing the present petition.

5. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for HSCL refers to the reply filed to the present application in which it is submitted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked only where the NHAI can show that it was prosecuting the matter in a good faith in a Court “which lacked the jurisdiction to entertain it.” It is submitted that in the present case NHAI can hardly claim that it approached the District Court at Yavatmal for bona fide reasons.

6. Mr. Patwalia referred to the order passed by the Calcutta High Court on 10th August, 2010 directing the parties to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks to enable the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The objection as to jurisdiction raised by NHAI was accepted by the Calcutta High Court. The objection was to the effect that the Court of appropriate jurisdiction was Delhi.

7. Mr. Patwalia then refers to the orders passed in OMP No. 530/2010 filed under Section 9 of the Act by the Respondent in this Court. It appears that NHAI participated throughout in the case and in its presence the NHAI was permitted to file a separate petition under Section 11 of the Act in this Court formalising the appointment of the former Chief Justice of India as the Sole Arbitrator.

8. It is submitted that NHAI knew fully well that the appropriate court as far as the jurisdiction was c