The dismissal of the appeal under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for lack of prosecution emphasizes the necessity of pursuing legal remedies diligently.

15th June 2023

Per Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

M/s A.S. Dhupia & Company has filed this commercial appeal through its Managing Partner to challenge the order dated 24th May 2019 passed in Revocation (Arb.) No.05 of 2019.

2. The aforementioned revocation case was filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 to challenge the award dated 20th August 2014.

3. The sole arbitrator has made an award of Rs.34,73,582.33 with interest @ 10% per annum from 25th March 1995 till the date of final realization in favour of Jamshedpur Co-operative House Building Society, which was the claimant.

4. The Commercial Court at East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has dismissed the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 for the following reasons:

“10. So from the above mentioned discussion of the documentary evidence and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court, it is crystal clear that the award dated 20- 08-2014 passed by Learned Sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case no. 23 of 2007 is a reasoned award and no need to interfere in the said award. There is no cogent reasons or material available on the record to set aside the award dated 20-08-2014 passed by Learned Sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case no. 23 of 2007.

11. On the basis of oral and documentary evidences of the parties and all the facts and materials available on record this court comes to the conclusion that there is no error appear on the face of the record or it has not come that the arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position. There is no material available on the record which prove that the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings or the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid that the court may set aside such award, so there is no required interfering with the award published by the Learned Sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case no. 23 of 2007.

12. Hence, in the light of the facts discussed above I find that Learned Sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case no. 23 of 2007 has not committed any error of law or fact in passing award dated 20-08-2014. As such there is no infirmity found in the award dated 20-08-2014 passed by Learned Sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case no. 23 of 2007 and hence, the impugned award dated 20-08-2014 does not require any interference. Accordingly, I find that instant suit for setting aside the arbitral award dated 20-08-2014 passed by Learned Sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case no. 23 of 2007 is devoid of merit and liable to be dismiss.”

5. The present commercial appeal was filed on 19th August 2019 and during pendency of this appeal Mr. T.S. Dhupia who was the Managing Partner of M/s A.S. Dhupia & Company has passed away.

6. In the order dated 10th May 2023, this Court has recorded the aforesaid information given by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Accordingly, hearing of this commercial appeal was adjourned to enable the appellant to file a substitution petition and an application for condonation of delay.

8. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant has expressed his inability to prosecute this commercial appeal stating that inspite of his best efforts, the widow of Mr. T.S. Dhupia who was the Managing Partner of M/s A.S. Dhupia & Company did not agree to file a substitution petition.

9. We would, therefore, dismiss this commercial appeal for want of prosecution.

10. Ordered accordingly.