OMP 201/2013

Page 1 of 9

$~9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgement delivered on: 31.10.2014

+

O.M.P. 201/2013

CREST EDUCATION (P) LTD.

..... Petitioner

Versus

CAREER LAUNCHER (I) LTD.

.... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the petitioner:

Mr Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr Rajat Malhotra & Mr Ojasvi

Khaneja, Advs.

For the respondent: Mr D.K. Sharma & Mr O.S. Punia, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IA No. 3467/2013 (condonation of delay in re-filing)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in re-

filing the petition. Notice in this application was issued on 01.03.2013.

Since then pleadings have been completed in the captioned application. The

relief sought in the application is opposed by the respondent. Briefly, for the

purposes of disposal of this application, following dates and events need to

be noted.

2. The award, which is impugned by the petitioner, and which is subject

matter of the main petition, is dated 18.08.2012. The said award was served

on the petitioner on 24.08.2012. The petition under Section 34 of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act), was filed on

2014:DHC:5618

OMP 201/2013

Page 2 of 9

22.11.2012. Therefore, the initial filing was within the period of 90 days as

provided in the 1996 Act.

3. The record shows that on 23.11.2012 seven (7) objections were raised

by the registry, whereupon the main petition was received back by the

counsel for the petitioner on 24.11.2012. The petition was re-filed after

removal of objections on 29.11.2012. On 29.11.2012, one of the objections

raised by the registry was that amount awarded ought to be mentioned, and

the, requisite court fee be paid accordingly, at the rate of 1%. Notably, this

objection was set out as item no. 8 in the objection note of the registry.

Furthermore, the aforementioned objection was similar to objection no.4

raised by the registry on 23.11.2012.

4. Evidently on 04.12.2012, the petitioner once again received the main

petition with objections. According to the petitioner, after removing the

objections, the petition was re-filed on 10.12.2012. It appears that, the

registry raised yet another objection which was referred to as objection no.

9, whereby it directed filing of the original award. The reason for raising

this objection was that the signature of the arbitrator were appended in black

ink, and that, the registry was finding it difficult to come to a conclusion as

to whether or not the award filed was the original award. The counsel for

the petitioner, apparently, retrieved the petition with objections on

04.01.2013. After rendering relevant explanation to the concerned officer in

the registry, the petition was re-filed on 15.01.2013.

5. It appears, that thereafter, the registry raised nine (9) objections on

16.01.2013, some of which formed subject matter of objections raised on

23.11.2012. Consequently, the petition was taken back on 07.02.2013.

Simultaneously, it appears that the petitioner wrote to his clients that it

2014:DHC:5618

OMP 201/2013

Page 3 of 9

should arrange necessary funds for payment of court fee in the matter. The

court fee, evidently, was purchased on 26.02.2013, and thus, the petition

along with the court fee was re-filed on 27.02.2013. The delay in re-filing

is, therefore, obtaining between the period dated 23.11.2012 and 26.02.2013.

It is this period, which the petitioner seeks condonation of delay.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application on the

following grounds:

(i)

That under the Rules Relating to Proceedings in High Court of Delhi

(Vol. V of Delhi High Court Rules and Orders), Chapter –I, Judicial

Business, Part-A(a) Rule 5(1), a petition returned on account of objections

raised by the registry has to be re-filed within the time not exceedi