Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000117

FAO(COMM) 202/2022 Page 1 of 6

$~2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2022

+

FAO (COMM) 202/2022 & CM APPLs.34834-36/2019, CM

APPL.30963/2022

UNION OF INDIA

..... Appellant

versus

APTEC ADVANCED PROTECIVE

TECHNOLOGIES AG

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr. Jatin Teotia, Advocate

& Mr. Dilpreet Singh, (Col. Import) Mr. Vikram Verma,

(Deputy Director)

For the Respondent: Mr. Akash Panwar, Advocate

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The appeal impugns the judgment dated 24.04.2019 whereby

the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been dismissed on

the ground of delay.

2.

Subject award was rendered on 18.06.2018. The admitted case

of appellant is that the copy of the award was received in their office

on 02.07.2018. This is also substantiated by the Dak Receipt Register

Digitally Signed

By:KUNAL MAGGU

Signing Date:09.01.2023

16:05:55

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000117

FAO(COMM) 202/2022 Page 2 of 6

wherein an entry has been made of receipt of the award on

02.07.2018.

3.

The contention of the appellant is that the award was sent to the

Legal Advisor (Defence) for an opinion, which opinion was received

only on 06.09.2018 opining that objections under Section 34 of the

Act need to be filed.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the

objections could only have been filed after the opinion had been

received from the Legal Advisor, the date of commencement of

limitation should be treated as 06.09.2018. Subject Objections having

been filed on 19.11.2018 and are accordingly within the time.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the

Supreme Court in P. Radha Bai & Ors. Vs. P. Ashok Kumar & Anr.

2019 13 SCC page 445 to contend that for the delivery of the award to

the party, in terms of the Section 34 of the Act, to be effective, has to

be construed as the receipt by the party who has knowledge of the

proceedings and would be the best person to understand and

appreciate the award and to take a decision in the matter i.e. filing

objection of the Section 34 of the Act.

6.

Learned counsel contends that as the LA (Defence) is the

Competent Authority to opine as to whether objections under Section

34 of the Act have to be preferred or not, the date when LA (Defence)

renders his opinion should be construed as the date of receipt of the

award.

Digitally Signed

By:KUNAL MAGGU

Signing Date:09.01.2023

16:05:55

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000117

FAO(COMM) 202/2022 Page 3 of 6

7.

We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant. It is an

admitted position that the award was received on 02.07.2018. The

party filing objection is Union of India. Minutes sheet and office

noting have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the

appellant. Though these were not before the Court dealing with the

objections, however, they in fact substantiate the reasoning of the Trial

Court.

8.

The minute sheets show that the award was received on

02.07.2018 and thereafter the concerned officer i.e. Deputy Director

Master General Ordinance (now designated as Master General

Sustenance) had forwarded the file to the integrated Headquarters of

Ministry of Defence (Army) for an opinion on 16.08.2018. The file

was thereafter routed through several Officers and finally reached the

LA (Defen