NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3006

O.M.P. (COMM) 79/2023

Page 1 of 13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of order : 26^th April, 2023

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 79/2023

UNION OF INDIA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,

CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar

Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and

Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday,

Advocates

versus

AADHAR STUMBH TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LTD..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Abhishek Semwal, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

O R D E R

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

I.A. 3337/2023

1.

The main Petition has been filed against the arbitral award dated

04.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator which was corrected vide

Order dated 04.01.2020. Vide the said arbitral award, the Sole Arbitrator

awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,40,32,569/- towards the claims to the

Respondent.

2.

The instant Application has been filed by the Petitioner praying for

condonation of the delay of 589 days and to hear the matter on its own

Digitally Signed

By:GAURAV SHARMA

Signing Date:03.05.2023

17:34:33

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3006

O.M.P. (COMM) 79/2023

Page 2 of 13

merits and treat the present Petition within the limitation period.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an objection

petition was filed by the Petitioner before the District Court

(Commercial), Patiala House, New Delhi on 11.11.2020. The delay in

filing the same was condoned due to the COVID-19 Lockdown and the

closure of Court during the said period.

4.

Learned counsel further submitted that after withdrawing the

Petition from the Patiala House Courts, the Central Public Works

Department (CPWD) approached the Ministry of Law and Justice vide

letter dated 25.03.2021 for appointment of a counsel for filing the appeal

before the appropriate forum i.e., the Delhi High Court. Further, a

Counsel was appointed, and the said Counsel never filed the appeal and

kept the file and documents with him.

5.

It is stated that the CPWD again requested the Ministry of Law and

Justice vide letter to appoint some other senior counsel for urgent filling

of the objection petition and thereafter the case was marked/transferred to

the present Standing Counsel. The counsel in this matter was appointed

by the Ministry of Law and Justice vide letter dated 15.06.2022 to file the

same. After various deliberation and conferences in this matter with the

officers of the concerned department, the present petition has been filed

without any delay.

6.

It is submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of “In

re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” in Suo Motu Writ Petition

(c) No. 3 of 2020 has extended the limitation period which came to an

Digitally Signed

By:GAURAV SHARMA

Signing Date:03.05.2023

17:34:33

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3006

O.M.P. (COMM) 79/2023

Page 3 of 13

end on 30.05.2022. Therefore, the limitation period of the present Petition

begins from the said date.

7.

It is submitted that the delay in filing the present petition is not

deliberate or intentional. The delay occurred due to administrative

exigencies, as the files must go through various departments and officers

for necessary approvals and vetting. It is stated that most of the delay

caused is only due to administrative exigencies and due to the laxity of

the previous counsel who did not file the present petition on time. It is

further submitted that if the delay is not condoned the Petitioner will

suffer an irreparable loss, however, no prejudice would be caused to the

Respondent if the delay in filing the present Petition is condoned by this

Court.

8.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed

the averments made and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for

the Petitioner. It is submitted that under the provisions of the Arbitration

Act, the delay beyond what is stipulated