Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd - Appellant
Versus
C.G. Power and Industrial Solution Limited - Respondent
Original Miscellaneous Petition (Comm) No. 405 of 2018
Decided On : 12-04-2019
Limitation Act - Exclusion of time - Section 14 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - [Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] - The court discussed the application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for exclusion of time spent in pursuing an earlier application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court analyzed the petitioner's challenges, territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction issues, and the restoration of the petition. The court considered the interpretations of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the conditions for its invocation, as well as the petitioner's conduct in prosecuting the earlier proceedings. The court dismissed the application and the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging an Arbitral Award and sought exclusion of time spent in pursuing earlier applications. The petition faced jurisdictional challenges and was dismissed for non-prosecution multiple times. The petitioner later sought to withdraw the petition on the ground of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct in prosecuting the earlier proceedings lacked due diligence and good faith, and ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The application seeking exclusion of time was dismissed, and the petition was barred by limitation and dismissed.
Issues: Jurisdictional challenges, exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the petitioner's conduct in prosecuting the earlier proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the conditions for invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner's lack of due diligence and good faith in prosecuting the earlier proceedings, and the inability to claim the benefit of Section 14. The court also considered the lack of explanation for the sudden advice on territorial jurisdiction and the filing of the petition before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The application seeking exclusion of time and the petition were dismissed, and the delay was not condoned under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Navin Chawla, J.
I.A. No.13088/2018
This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) praying for exclusion of time spent by the petitioner in pursuing its earlier application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the District Courts at Saharanpur for the purpose of computing the limitation for filing of the present petition. The total period of time sought to be excluded is 6263 days.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 15.03.2001 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators. The said Award adjudicated the disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the work of construction and maintenance of Babail Power House at Village Babail in District Saharanpur awarded by the petitioner to the respondent.
3. The petitioner challenged the above Award by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the Court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner made the following submission :
"The agreement was made at Lucknow but the working site was at village Babail in District Saharanpur. The entire work was done and executed, measured and cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence this Court has the jurisdiction."
4. As far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the same was valued at Rs.3,83,41,431/-.
5. The Civil Judge, Saharanpur vide order dated 26.08.2003 held that the Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said petition.
6. Upon presenting the petition before the Court of District Judge, Saharanpur, the District Judge extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner vide his order dated 13.02.2004.
7. The said petition was thereafter transferred from the Court of District Judge, Saharanpur to the Court of Additional District Judge, Saharanpur on 11.04.2011. The reason for such transfer is not evident from the record.
8. The petition was, however, dismissed for non prosecution on 15.07.2013 as none appeared before the Court on behalf of the petitioner.
9. The petition was thereafter restored for hearing vide order dated 05.09.2014.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition was thereafter transferred to the Court of District Judge, Saharanpur on 03.09.2015. It was again dismissed for non prosecution on 22.11.2016.
11. On 08.12.2016, the petitioner filed application seeking restoration of the petition. Notice on such application was issued to the respondent, however, the order dated 10.01.2017 and 28.04.2017 reflects that the same was not served. In the meantime, the respondent filed an execution petition, being Execution Petition no.63/2017, before the Court of District Judge, Saharanpur seeking enforcement of the Impugned Award.
12. The petitioner filed an application seeking stay of the execution proceedings, however, the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Saharanpur vide order dated 06.01.2018.
13. The petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Petition No.775/2018 before the High Court of Allahabad praying for direction to the Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, for early disposal of petitioner's application seeking restoration of the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.
14. The petitioner also filed another petition, being Misc. Petition No.744/2018, before the High Court of Allahabad praying for a direction against the District Judge from proceeding further with the Execution Petition.
15. The above Writ Petitions were disposed of by the High Court of Allahabad vide its order dated 19.02.2018 directing as under:
"After some argument, learned counsel for the parties agree for disposal of the instant petition in the following terms :-
(a) The impugned order dated 6.1.2018 be set aside and the restoration application be directed to be decided within two weeks fr
AI
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
