FAO 257/2021

1

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 04^th May, 2022

+

FAO 257/2021 & CM APPL. 41562/2021

SHARMA AND ASSOCIATES

….. Appellant

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

…..Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. R.R. Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Sharma, ASC, NDMC with Mr. Vikrant

Pachnanda, Mr. Mukul Katyal, Mr. Mohit Siwach and Mr.

Nirvikar Verma, Advocates.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1.

Appellant impugns order dated 07.08.2021, whereby the

application filed by the Appellant under section 34(3) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the

Arbitration Act) has been dismissed holding that the appellant has

failed to furnish any sufficient cause for not challenging the award

within the prescribed period of limitation and consequently the

objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, impugning

the arbitral award dated 14.11.2019, have been dismissed.

2022:DHC:1699

FAO 257/2021

2

2.

The Trial Court has held that the appellant has not been able to

show sufficient cause for not moving the application within the

original period of 90 days.

3.

For ascertaining whether the objections have been filed within

time and as to whether the Appellant had shown sufficient cause

which prevented the appellant from filing the objections within the

stipulated period of three months, it would be expedient to refer to the

factual matrix.

4.

The award impugned was published on 14.11.2019. The

appellant on the said date was in Canada. Since the Tribunal was

constituted by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC for

short), Appellant by email dated 16.11.2019, requested DIAC for

being provided with a copy of the Award.

5.

Appellant was informed that a copy of the award had been sent

by speed post, however a soft copy of the award dated 14.11.2019 was

sent by email on 20.11.2019. Appellant contends that he received the

copy of the award sent by speed post only on his return from Canada.

6.

Calculated from 20.11.2019, the time for filing the objections

expired on 20.02.2020, excluding the date of receipt of the copy by

email.

7.

As per the appellant, he was in Canada and returned only on

2022:DHC:1699

FAO 257/2021

3

29.02.2020. Appellant was thereafter quarantined as per the advisory

of the Government and as soon as he was released from quarantined,

lockdown was imposed in the country. It is contended that as one of

his neighbours was tested positive, the entire street, where the house

of the appellant is situated, was blocked and no one was allowed out

of their houses. It was only on 04.06.2020 that his neighbor delivered

the hard copy of the award. It is submitted that his counsel was not

cooperating and as such the appellant has to apply for the certified

copy of the Arbitral Award.

8.

The Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) 3 of

2020 by order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period of limitation with

effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders.

9.

Subject objections under section 34 of the Arbitration Act were

filed on 23.01.2021. It was contended by the appellant that the entire

period w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 23.01.2021 was liable to be excluded

while computing limitation.

10.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act stipulates as under:

2022:DHC:1699

FAO 257/2021

4

days, but not thereafter.”

11.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act stipulates that application

for setting aside of the award the application for setting aside of the

award has to be made within three months from the date on which the

party making that application had received the arbitral award and if

the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the

application within the said period of three months within a further

period of thirty days, but not ther