Adherence to time limits stipulated under the Arbitration Act and the requirement of due diligence in seeking condonation of delay.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Arbitration Act") seeking the following reliefs:

"a) To allow the present petitioner in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondent and set aside the imposed award dated 15th July, 2019 to the effect whereby the Arbitral Tribunal has no objection Reply to the petitioner.

b) Pass any other order deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

2. The petitioner, by way of the instant petition, has assailed the Award dated 12th July 2019, which has been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration proceedings initiated between the parties pursuant to the disputes arisen amongst them stemming from the insurance coverage sought by the petitioner from the respondent.

3. On 13th June 2015, a fire broke out at the NOIDA factory of the petitioner, for which the petitioner sought coverage, however, it has been alleged that the same was not acted upon by the respondents as per its scheme and policies, after which the said reference to arbitration was sought.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken several objections with respect to the Award, which have been summarised hereunder:

a. The Arbitral Tribunal while ignoring the aspect of arbitrary deductions in claim as well as an additional 20% interest on the same, allowed the interest on account of delay in payment of the claim.

b. The Arbitral Tribunal did not allow any interest towards the delay in issuing the Survey Report dated 28th July 2016 by M/s Sandeep Bharti Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. The surveyors took 13 months to release the Report from the date of the fire, thereby violating the IRDA guidelines for settlement of the claims.

c. In addition to disallowing Interest on account of delay in issuing the survey report by the surveyor, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed interest @ 9% per year only, despite the provision of payment of interest @ 2% over and above the Bank rate, in the IRDA guidelines.

d. The impugned Award has been passed on the basis of presumption and suspicion without appreciation of the facts and circumstances.

e. The impugned Award is in conflict with the public policy of the country. Moreover, the Award is also not reasoned.

5. On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the respondent and today, the learned counsel for the respondent has appeared and vehemently opposed the instant petition on the ground of limitation. The respondent has also filed its written synopsis which records the objections to the delay in filing the petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent at the very outset submitted that the petition has not been filed in accordance with Section 34(3) and 34(5) of the Arbitration Act and there is a significant delay in filing the instant petition challenging the impugned Award. It is submitted that the Award had been passed in the month of July 2019, whereas the petition has been filed in March 2021.

7. It is submitted that, despite the inordinate delay, the petitioner has failed to file any application seeking the condonation of such delay. The petitioner has not shown any cause or reason for the delay of over two years. Moreover, instead of seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition, the petitioner only filed an application for condonation of 154 days' delay in re-filing of the petition, when the same was marked under objections, on the grounds of inability during the second wave of Covid- 19 pandemic.

8. The learned counsel strongly urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay as well as for the reason of being devoid of merit.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent to the petition is on the ground of limitation as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Therefo