O.M.P.114/2013 Page 1 of 17

$~58

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

O.M.P. 114/2013

%

Judgement Reserved on: 11^th August, 2014

Judgement pronounced on: 25^th August, 2014

NORTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms.Shobhaa Gupta, Adv.

versus

M/S HARCHAN DASS GUPTA CONST. PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Virender Kumar Sharma,

adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

I.A.2285/2013 (for delay)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the award dated 19.9.2012. Along with the said petition,

the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in

refiling the petition. It is submitted in the said application that

petition was filed on 9.11.2012 which was returned with objection on

2014:DHC:4144

O.M.P.114/2013 Page 2 of 17

16.11.2012. Since then the petition has been under objection time

and again with different objections including for retyping of a large

number of annexures and all the objections were diligently removed

and the petition was refiled on 15.01.2013. A fresh objection

regarding the format of the petition was raised by the registry on

18.1.2013 which has also been removed. It is submitted that the

petition was delayed by approximately 48 days. It is submitted that

the delay in refiling was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to

reasons mentioned above.

2. The application is contested by the respondent who was issued

notice of this application. It is submitted that the petition was filed

on 9.11.2012. Thereafter it was admittedly refiled on 15.1.2013 and

thus there was a delay of two months. It is an admitted fact that there

is a delay of 60 days in refiling the petition and not 48 days as

contended. It is further submitted that even after 18.1.2013 the

refiling has been delayed by more than two weeks as is apparent from

the date of attestation of the affidavit. It is denied that the delay in

refiling was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is submitted that no

2014:DHC:4144

O.M.P.114/2013 Page 3 of 17

justification has been shown in delay in refiling and it is prayed that

the application as well as the petition be dismissed being barred by

limitation.

3. I have heard the arguments and have considered all the

contentions of the learned counsels for the parties.

4. In this case the award is dated 19.9.2012. The petition was

first filed on 9.11.2012. The period of limitation prescribed for filing

petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is 90 days. The proviso to

the said section provides that the period of filing of petition under

Section 34 can be extended upto a further period of 30 days, if the

court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause

from making the application within the said period of three months.

The Supreme Court in the case (2001) 8 SCC 470 titled as Union of

India vs. Popular Construction Co. has clearly held as under :

2014:DHC:4144

O.M.P.114/2013 Page 4 of 17

5. It therefore is a settled principle of law that provisions of

Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the petition filed

under Section 34 of the Act, while calculating the period of limitation

for filing of the petition. There is no dispute to the fact that in the

present case, the petition was filed within 90 days of period of

limitation prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act. The award in

this case was passed on 19.9.2012 and the petition was filed on

9.11.2012. The petition so filed suffered with defects and registry