The court emphasized that a party diligently pursuing a legal remedy before a court lacking jurisdiction can seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, furthering the cause of justice.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J.

I.A.1672/2020

1. 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 or