Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt Ltd - Respondent
O.M.P. (Comm) No. 489 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - DSIIDC - 1966 - [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966] - [Section 34] - The court discussed the impugned award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, and directed the respondent to pay the outstanding ground rent amounting to Rs. 1,57,87,606/- for the execution of the Supplementary Lease Deed. The court also examined the delay in filing the petition and the challenge on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, DSIIDC, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 24.12.2018. The dispute arose in relation to a commercial plot purchased by the respondent, Mapsa, from DSIIDC. The petitioner sought payment of outstanding ground rent and challenged the impugned award on the grounds of delay and contrary to the provisions of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the petition was condoned for seventeen days but rejected the condonation for the further delay in re-filing. The court also held that the impugned award was not patently illegal or contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The court dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues before the court were the condonation of delay in filing the petition, the challenge to the impugned award, and the contrary view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal in another case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the petition was condoned for seventeen days but rejected the condonation for the further delay in re-filing. The court also held that the impugned award was not patently illegal or contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the impugned award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereafter 'DSIIDC') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereafter the 'A&C Act'), inter alia, impugning an Arbitral Award dated 24.12.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter the 'impugned award') comprising of a Sole Arbitrator. Further, the petitioner prays that the respondent (hereafter 'Mapsa') be directed to pay the outstanding ground rent amounting to Rs. 1,57, 87,606/- (up to 05.07.2018) for the execution of the Supplementary Lease Deed.
2. Dsiidc is a Government of NCT of Delhi undertaking, established in 1971, tasked with aiding, counseling, assisting and financing promoted projects to transform the face of Delhi. Mapsa is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The impugned award was rendered in respect of the disputes that had arisen in relation to a commercial plot measuring 1000 sq.m. located at the Bawana Industrial Area, which was purchased by Mapsa from DSIIDC in an open auction on 30.10.2006 bearing Plot No. 1/07, Sector - 1, Cluster - O (1000 sq.m.), Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi (hereafter 'the Plot').
3. The Plot was purchased by Mapsa for a consideration of Rs. 6.81 crores and Mapsa deposited Rs. 1,70,25,000/- with DSIIDC on the date of the auction (that is, on 30.10.2006). In terms of the auction, the total consideration was to be paid by Mapsa in two tranches of 25% and 75%. On 13.11.2006, DSIIDC issued an Allotment cum Demand Letter (hereafter the 'Letter of Allotment'), directing Mapsa to pay the balance sum amounting to Rs. 5,10,75,005/- within ninety days from the receipt of the said letter. In accordance with Clause 7 (i) of the General Terms and Conditions of Auction (hereafter GTCA), Mapsa was required to pay ground rent for the Plot allocated to it from the date of issuance of the Letter of Allotment, that is, from 13.11.2006.
4. Mapsa responded to the Letter of Allotment on 16.01.2007, stating that in terms of Clause 5 (i) of the GTCA, DSIIDC was required to attach four copies of the Perpetual Lease Deed along with a copy of the site plan. A reminder to the aforesaid effect was sent by Mapsa to DSIIDC on 22.01.2007. DSIIDC did not accede to the said request. On 12.02.2007, Mapsa deposited the balance amount due in terms of the GTCA - 75% of the purchase amount, that is, Rs. 5,10,75,005/-.
5. On 14.02.2007, DSIIDC informed Mapsa that the finalisation of the Lease Deed format will take some time and sought certain additional details from Mapsa. On 08.06.2007, Mapsa complied with the said directions.
6. Thereafter, on 19.06.2007, Mapsa was handed over possession of the Plot, however, the execution of the Lease Deed was deferred on the ground that the format for the Lease Deed was yet to be finalised. Mapsa followed up with DSIIDC for the execution of the lease deed and sent a number of letters in that regard.
7. On 31.07.2009, DSIIDC supplied Mapsa four copies of the Lease Deed, which was returned to DSIIDC duly filled out by Mapsa on 07.07.2010. The said Lease Deed was registered on 19.10.2010. Thereafter, by letters dated 29.08.2011 and 05.09.2011, Mapsa pointed out certain inaccuracies in the Lease Deed and requested that a corrigendum be issued. Thereafter, by a letter dated 03.08.2011, Mapsa sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from DSIIDC for the approval of building plans by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). On 24.11.2011, DSIIDC conveyed a demand of Rs. 2,41,972/- on account of arrears of ground rent till 30.11.2011. This amount was disputed by Mapsa, however, it deposited the aforesaid amount under protest on 30.11.2011.
8. Aggrieved by the demand of ground rent, Mapsa filed a Writ Petition before this Court [W.P.(C) 1831/2012 captioned 'M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt Ltd v. DSIIDC Ltd.'] praying that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,41,972/- be refunded to it and further, that DSIIDC produce the Architectural Control Drawing (ACD). According to DSIIDC, during the course of those pro
AI
The court emphasized a pragmatic approach in determining 'sufficient cause' for delays attributed to government entities, asserting equal application of limitation laws for all parties involved.
The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, allowing the delay of 23 days to be condoned as sufficient cause was explained by the DDA.
The scope of interference in an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating a challen....
Arbitration Act Section 34(3) bars challenges to awards after 3 months + 30 days maximum; courts cannot extend further, ensuring immediate enforceability under Section 36 to minimize judicial interve....
The dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was justified due to the petitioner's failure to meet limitation requirements, as procedural defects impeded timely filing.
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
