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

2023 Supreme(Del) 4155

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Delhi Jal Board – Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Construction Co. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Atul K. Bandhu and Mr. M.K. Gaur, Advocates, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 18.11.2017 in ARB 32/2017 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 39 Rule 3 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the petition came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and the explanation provided in the application and passed the impugned order on mere technicalities.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that not only there was delay of 287 days in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act even the present appeal is filed after a delay of nearly 327 days.

4. A perusal of the records would show that the respondent had filed a claim wherein it was awarded a work of replacement of undersized sewers in Model Town, Delhi, Civil Line Zone vide Award dated 25.10.2002. The said work was to star

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top