Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI - Petitioner
Versus
Y D BUILDERS & HOTELS PVT. LTD. - Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 338/2016 & IA Nos.8718-20/2016
Decided On : 19-10-2016
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34(3) - The court analyzed Section 34(3) of the Act, which allows for the condonation of delay in filing a petition to set aside an arbitral award. The court held that the delay in this case exceeded the initial three-month period and could not be condoned beyond 30 days.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an arbitral award. The petition was filed beyond the three-month time limit, but the petitioner claimed that the delay was due to administrative reasons. The petition was re-filed multiple times with objections not being removed. The petitioner argued that as a government entity, its processes take considerable time. The court referred to Section 34(3) of the Act, which allows for the condonation of delay if the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause. The court cited a previous decision that stated that while the court has the jurisdiction to condone delay, it should not be done liberally. The court held that the delay in this case exceeded three months and that the petitioner had not provided a satisfactory explanation. The court dismissed the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed Section 34(3) of the Act and previous case law to determine whether the delay in re-filing the petition could be condoned. The court held that while it has the jurisdiction to condone delay, it should not be done liberally and the delay in this case exceeded the initial three-month period. The court also cited a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the need for government departments to perform their duties diligently and not rely on procedural red-tape as an excuse for delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that petitions under Section 34 of the Act must be filed within three months of receiving the arbitral award and the court cannot condone delay in re-filing beyond 30 days. The legislative object of the Act is to ensure expeditious resolution of arbitration proceedings, and this object cannot be frustrated by condoning inordinate delays in re-filing.
Result: The court dismissed the application for delay condonation.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
IA No.8720/2016
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking condonation of delay of 110 days in re-filing of the above captioned petition.
2. The petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Act’) impugning an arbitral award dated 22.10.2015. The present petition was filed on 23.01.2016 which is apparently beyond the period of three months from the date of passing of the award. However, the petitioner asserts that the concerned department had received the copy of award only on 27.10.2015, therefore, the petition was filed within the time as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act i.e. within the period of three months from the receipt of the copy of the arbitral award.
3. The said petition was returned under objection by the Registry of this Court with various objections on the same date i.e. 23.01.2016. Apparently, the petition was not signed as required and was also not supported by a statement of truth. The petition was thereafter re-filed on 03.02.2016 but all objections were not removed. The petition was thereafter re-filed on 08.02.2016 and again on 19.02.2016 but was returned under objections on both occasions. The petition was thereafter re-filed on 26.05.2016 -after a period of more than three months -but all objections had still not been removed. The petition was re-filed successively on various dates but was returned under objection on each occasion and finally the petition was re-filed on 19.07.2016.
4. In the present case, the petitioner has sought to explain the delay in re-filing in the following manner: The petitioner states that although the petition was filed in January, 2016, the Department had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to engage a senior advocate and after consultations, the name of a senior advocate was sent to the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Office of the Chief Minister. It is stated that the Competent Authority took “considerable time due to administrative reasons” and communicated its approval only by end of March 2016. Subsequently, it transpired that certain documents were not available and copies thereof were obtained from the arbitrator on 26.04.2016. The petitioner thereafter took steps for having the documents typed and the typed documents were received by 20.05.2016.
5. The petition was re-filed on 19.7.2016 and there is no explanation as to why it took further two months for re-filing the petition after curing the defects.
6. Ms Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is the Government of NCT of Delhi, its processes take considerable time.
7. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 34(3) of the Act, which reads as under:
“Section 34(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”
8. The provisions of Section 34(3) Act are unambiguous, the court may entertain a petition for setting aside the award even after three months provided the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition within a period of three months. However the court cannot entertain a petition after 30 days of the expiry of the initial period of three months.
9. In Delhi Development Authority vs. M/s Durga Construction Co: 2013 (139) DRJ 133 a division bench of this Court had considered the question as to whether the Court can condone the delay in re-filing beyond 120 days. Althou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
