Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 5110
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J
M/s. Chhabra Coal Beneficiaries & Energy (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Rexon Strips Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.42509 of 2023 | Arbitration Case No.03 of 2022 | W.P.(C) No.10261 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. J.S. Chhabra
For the Respondents: Mr. P.P. Mohanty
The court confirmed that mistakes in citing legal provisions do not invalidate orders if jurisdiction is appropriately established, emphasizing the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for time exclusion.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 14 - Delay in filing appeal against an arbitration award - The District Judge condoned delay beyond statutory limits, relying erroneously on Section 5 instead of Section 14 - The Writ Petition challenged this order, asserting that the delay should not have been condoned as it violated established precedents. (Paras 3, 6, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that mentioning incorrect legal provisions does not invalidate the order made if jurisdiction was inherently valid. The Impugned order was ultimately upheld based on the proper legal context, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for recovery under the MSMED Act after an arbitration award was made in their favor, but the respondent's subsequent delay challenged the award in violation of the statutory limitations.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies, allowing exclusion of time spent in prior proceedings and upholding the District Judge's actions despite technical application errors.
Issues: The primary issues involved the validity of excluding delay due to previous petitions, and the proper application of limitation statutes.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling clarified that the application of Section 14 allows exclusion of specific periods while computing limitation and errors in mentioning legal provisions do not invalidate a court order if jurisdictional directives were properly followed.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the arbitration process and petitioner’s claim. (Para 1) |
“ORDER
08.03.2022
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal of this writ petitionwith liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawnbut, however with liberty as prayed for”. (Emphasis Supplied)
After passing of the said order by this Court giving liberty to the Opposite Party No.1, admittedly the section 34 application under the Act, 1996 was presented before the District Judge, Sundargarh after 24 days from the date of the said order along with an application to condone the delay in view of the liberty granted by this Court. However, while filing such application for exclusion/condonation of delay, a wrong mention was made in the cause title that such application is being moved in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act, though in para 5 of the said petition there is a reference to section 14 of the Limitation Act. Paragraph Nos.1 to 6 of the said petition, being relevant, are extracted below for ready reference.
“1. That by means of the accompanied petition, the Petitioner inter- alia challenges the Impugned order/award dated 26.02.2019 passed by MSEFC, Opposite Party No.1 in MSEFC Case No.13 of 2016, which was communicated by the Office of Director of Industries, Odisha on 14.05.2019 and the Petitioner had received the same award/order on 24.05.2019.
2. That on 10.06.2019, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order/award dated 26.02.2019 passed by MSEFC, Opposite Party No.1 in MSEFC Case No.13 of 2016 had filed a writ application in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, which was registered as W.P. (C) No.10261 of 2019.
3. That on 27.06.2019, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa was pleased to issue notice to the Opposite Parties and the notices were issued to the Opposite Parties fixing the appearance on 06.08.2019. After receipt of notice from Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, the Opposite parties had entered his appearance.
4. That while the matter stood thus, on 08.03.2022, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa was pleased to pass the following order in W.P.(C) No.10261 of 2019:
"Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn but however with liberty’s as prayed for."
It may be noted that on 11.03.2022, the Petitioner has received the certified copy of the aforesaid order.
5. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present petition in this Hon’ble Court with a prayer to condone the delay taking into consideration of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , as well as the other provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 .
6. That delay in filing the present petition in this Hon’ble Court is not deliberate nor intentional on part of the Petitioner”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
Admittedly, the present Petitioner (Opposite Party in Arbitration Case No.03 of 2022) did not file any written objection in response to the said application. Simply it chose to file two judgments of the Supreme Court to oppose the said prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that delay beyond the statutory period cannot be condoned in a proceeding initiated under section 34 of the Act, 1996. At this juncture, it would be apt to deal with the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to substantiate his submission.
14. In Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 34 application was well within the period of limitation, as prescribed under the Act, 1996. If not, whether the delay is condonable by exercise of power under section 5 of the Limitation Act? Whether the learned Division Benc
