SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Del) 644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Nhpc Limited - Appellant
Versus
Bgs-sgs-soma Jv - Respondent
Interlocutory Application No. 613 of 2020, 3900 of 2020; Original Miscellaneous Petition (Comm) No. 23 of 2020
Decided On : 17-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Maninder Acharya, Advocate, Puneet Taneja, Advocate, Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate, Viplav Acharya, Advocate, Mukesh, Advocate, Kamal, Advocate, Arvind Nigam, Advocate, Arunabh Chowdhury, Advocate, Vaibhav Tomar, Advocate

The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act if it diligently and in good faith pursued the proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction. The entire period from the institution of the original proceedings to the termination of the appellate proceedings should be excluded while computing the delay.

Headnote:Limitation Act - Application under Section 14 - Limitation Act - 1963 - The court discussed the issue of whether the present petition is a re-presentation of the original petition or a fresh petition. The court held that even if the present petition is treated as a fresh petition, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court also discussed the principles guiding the application of Section 14 and held that the petitioner diligently and in good faith pursued the proceedings before the Gurugram Court, Punjab High Court, and Supreme Court. The court further held that the entire period from the institution of the original proceedings to the termination of the appellate proceedings should be excluded while computing the delay. The court concluded that the present petition was filed within the statutory limitation period and allowed the application. The accompanying petition was listed for consideration on a later date.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application seeking exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting its initial challenge to an arbitral award before a court without jurisdiction. The petitioner had challenged the award before the Faridabad Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Gurugram Court and then appealed before the Punjab High Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed the present petition before the Delhi High Court within the limitation period.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the present petition is a re-presentation of the original petition and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court excluded the period during which the proceedings were pending before various courts and found that the present petition was filed within the statutory limitation period.

Issues:

Whether the present petition is a re-presentation of the original petition or a fresh petition? Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act? Whether the present petition is within the limitation period?

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the present petition is a re-presentation of the original petition and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court excluded the period during which the proceedings were pending before various courts and found that the present petition was filed within the statutory limitation period.

Final Decision:

The court allowed the application and held that the present petition was filed within the limitation period. The accompanying petition was listed for consideration on a later date.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - The present application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by NHPC Limited, the petitioner in the accompanying petition preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), though styled as one seeking condonation of delay, primarily seeks exclusion of the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting its initial challenge to the arbitral Award before a Court without jurisdiction.

2. The subject dispute arises out of an agreement between the parties for construction of the largest hydroelectric project in the country, on the Subransi River in the states of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. In the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Act filed before this Court on 08.01.2020, the petitioner has assailed the award passed by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal on 26.08.2016, which was subsequently rectified on 04.10.2016 whereunder a sum of Rs.424,70,52,126.66/- along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum till the date of payment was awarded in favour of the respondent/claimant.

3. Soon after the passing of the Award, the petitioner had challenged the same by preferring an application under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, Haryana which came to be filed on 03.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ''original petition''). On being served, the respondent herein, on 28.04.2017 moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) r/w Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act before the Faridabad Court praying therein that the original petition be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court at Delhi, on the ground that the Faridabad Court did not possess the requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the Section 34 challenge. Before any decision could be rendered by the Faridabad Court, the Commercial Court came to be constituted at Gurugram and the original petition was, therefore, transferred to the Commercial Court at Gurugram which, vide its order dated 21.12.2017, allowed the respondent''s application by directing return of the original petition, being Arb. Case 118/2017, for presentation before the competent court at Delhi.

4. On 15.02.2018, the petitioner challenged this order dated 21.12.2017 by way of an appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which came to be allowed by the High Court on 12.09.2018 with directions to the Gurugram Court to expeditiously decide the original petition on merits. Armed with this order, the petitioner preferred an application before the Gurugram Court seeking expeditious listing of the original petition. It is at this stage that the respondent approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court assailing the order of the High Court and the Supreme Court, vide its order dated 28.09.2018 issuing notice in the respondent''s SLP(C) No.25618/2018, stayed operation of the High Court''s judgment. As a consequence, the proceedings at the Gurugram Court came to a halt and the matter remained pending there till the Supreme Court, on 10.12.2019, allowed the respondent''s special leave petition by setting aside the orders of the Punjab High Court and directing the petitioner to present the original petition before the competent courts in New Delhi, as had been previously directed by the Gurugram Court.

5. On the very next date, i.e, 11.12.2019,the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the Supreme Court''s order dated 10.12.2019 and the day after that, i.e., 12.12.2019, applied to the Gurugram Court for a certified copy of the original petition and return of the record pertaining thereto, for presentation of the same before this Court. The petitioner received the original petition from the Gurugram Court on 21.12.2019, and took steps thereafter to engage a counsel to present a petition under Section 34 before this Court which it filed on 08.01.2020.

6. It is the petitioner''s case that since this Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top