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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Standardcasting Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CM No. 12923 of 2021 in FAO (COMM.) No. 83 of 2021
Decided On : 13-05-2022




The court may condone delays in filing appeals where sufficient cause is shown, including circumstances beyond a party's control, advocated particularly in light of unprecedented events like a pandemic.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 and Section 37(1)

(B) - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1A) - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Delay of 352 days in filing appeal was explained due to clerical oversight, pandemic-induced lockdown, and challenges in communication within appellant's organization - Condonation allowed due to unique circumstances and lack of intentional negligence on part of the appellant. (Paras 1, 4, 32-34)

(B) Judicial intervention in arbitration - The court has discretion to condone delay if sufficient cause is demonstrated; delay is not always viewed negatively, especially during unprecedented situations like a pandemic. (Paras 11, 33)

(C) Principle of sufficient cause - The concept requires a liberal interpretation to promote justice while checking for negligence or lack of diligence. (Paras 13, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a prominent corporation in fuel supply, filed an appeal after a significant delay (352 days) against the trial court's judgment which set aside an arbitration award dismissing the respondent's claim. The explanation included administrative failures and COVID-19 restrictions that impeded timely action.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the appellant's claims for condonation of delay, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Issues: Whether sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was established by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court granted condonation based on its discretion under the Limitation Act, accepting the appellant's explanation as aligning with the broader principle of justice over procedural technicality in unique circumstances like a pandemic.

Result: Delay in filing the appeal condoned.

ORDER

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

This order shall decide an application dated 10.02.2021 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay of 352 days in filing thepresent appeal.

1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is one of the largest Corporations engaged in supply of fuel and other allied products throughout India. The respondent is largest manufacturer of refuellers in India and is serving the appellant since the last over 30 years. The appellant vide letter dated 25.02.2002 containing terms and conditions placed an order with the respondent for fabrication and supply of 6 Nos. 45 KL capacity aviation articulated refuellers with tank made up of mild steel material. Due to disputes and differences arose between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent vide legal notice dated 19.08.2006 invoked the Arbitration Clause contained in the contract and sought for an appointment of an Arbitrator. The appellant through Director (Marketing) appointed M.K. Jain as Sole Arbitrator who entered on reference on 29.08.2007. The Sole Arbitrator vide Arbitral Award dated 16.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Award") dismissed claim of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 titled as Standard Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. bearing OMP No. 538/2011 for setting aside Impugned Award before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to Dwarka District Courts and numbered as Arbtn. No. 80/2017(72/2019). The Court of Additional District Judge-01, South-West District, Dwarka Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") vide judgment dated 13.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Judgment") allowed the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and set aside the Impugned Award. The appellant being aggrieved filed present appeal under section 37(1)(B) of the Act read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against Impugned Judgment but after a delay of 352 days.

2. The appellant in the application under disposal stated that the appellant has filed present appeal on 18.03.2021 i.e., after delay of 352 days. The respondent had initially filed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act bearing OMP No. 538/2011before High Court of Delhi, which was subsequently transferred to the DwarkaDistrict Courts and registered as Arbtn.No.80/2017. The petition was tried as Arbtn.No.80/2017 and fixed for orders on 06.01.2020. The Trial Court at the time of pronouncing impugned judgment also inserted 72/2019 after 80/2017. The counsel for appellant was never made aware that the trial court has started treating Arbtn. No.80/2017 as 72/2019. The counsel for the appellant handed over application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment to his clerk but he stopped reporting for duty on 15.02.2020 as he was blessed with a son. The clerk of the counsel for the appellant did not join back and never informed about status of the application submitted for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment. The lock down was announced in the country on 25th March, 2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 issued direction for exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 while computing the limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding. The counsel for appellant was unable to apply for certified copy of impugned judgment due to old age and also infected by Covid-19. He applied for the certified copy on 21.09.2020 which was received on 08.10.2020. The decision to file appeal against impugned judgment could not be taken till December, 2020due to lack of coordination amongst officers of the appellant caused by prevailing Covid-19 pandemic. The appeal thereafter was prepared and sent to Mumbai for signatures and attestation.The cou

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 Back to top