O.M.P. (COMM) 59/2022

Page 1 of 7

$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 59/2022

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ankit Jain, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr.

Abhishek Katnala, Ms. Harshita Verma

&

Mr.

Karmanya

Dev

Sharma,

Advocates.

versus

MS KAMAL BUILDERS

...... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Udit Seth & Mr. M.S. Jayashree,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

I.A. 1650/2022 (u/S 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

read with Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

for condonation of delay of 633 days for filing the accompanying

petition)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 read with

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 34(3) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the

Act)for condonation of delay in filing/refiling of the petition under

Section 34 of the Act.

2.

It is submitted in the application that the petitioner had preferred

the petition under Section 34 of the Act seeking setting aside of the

Arbitral Award dated 14.03.1919 read with modified Award dated

16.04.2019, in respect of claim no. 13 and claim no. 17. The copy of the

modified Award was received by the petitioner on 22.04.2019. Under the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002298

O.M.P. (COMM) 59/2022

Page 2 of 7

bona fide belief that petition under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable

before the Hon’ble District Judge based on the value of the claims that it

had challenged in the petition under Section 34, the petitioner filed the

petition before the District Court on 22.07.2019 within the period of

limitation. The matter remained pending before the Hon’ble District

Judge for filing of the reply/objection to the petition by the respondent.

Thereafter, the issue of maintainability was raised by the respondent in

regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner withdrew

the petition with liberty to file the same before the appropriate court

which was allowed by Order dated 12.04.2021. Immediately after the

withdrawal of the petition, the petitioner prepared its petition under

Section 34 of the Act for filing in this court but due to the spread of

Covid-19 pandemic and limited functioning at the office of the petitioner

and change of counsels, the petition could be filed only on 21.12.2021.

3. The petitioner has stated that it pursued its objections before the

learned District Judge for 633 days in a bona fide manner and in good

faith on a mistaken basis of valuation of the petition for the purpose of

pecuniary jurisdiction. It is further explained that physical functioning of

the High Court remained suspended and was resumed only from

30.05.2022. It is submitted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act.1963

provides for exclusion of the period during which the party pursues its

remedy before a wrong forum. In the case of M.P. Housing Board V.

Mohanlal & Co., reported as (2016) 14 SCC 199, the Supreme Court held

that there has to be a liberal interpretation of the section to advance the

cause of justice and requisite importance has to be given to the

prosecution of prior proceedings which should be shown to have been

pursued with due diligence and in good faith. The petition under Section

34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act remained pending before the District

Court from 22.7.2019 till it was withdrawn on 12.04.2021. The present

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002298

O.M.P. (COMM) 59/2022

Page 3 of 7

objections have been filed in the Court on 21.12.2021. A prayer is made

to condone/exclude the period of 633 days for the reasons stated in the

application.

4.

The respondent in his reply, has claimed that from the averments

made in the petition itself, it is evident that the petition has not been f