Advocates:
['Arvind Shrivastava', '', 'ANUMEH SHRIVASTAVA', 'Vikas Shrivastava', 'A G', '', 'SATISH CHANDRA VERMA INTERVENOR', 'Rajat Agrawal', 'Mohan Lal Sen', 'ROHIT SHARMA', 'RAHUL SHARMA', 'VATAN SAHU']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

W

rit Petition (C)

No.

2 8 24

of 2017

Bilaspur Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Vikas

Bhawan, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Meinhardt Singapore Pvt. Ltd. (India Branch), having corporate

office at A-8, Sector-16, Noida 201 301 (U.P.)

2. Chief Executive Officer, State Urban Development Authority, 3^rd

Floor, RDA Building, Raipur (C.G.)

3. Department of Urban Administation and Development, through

Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

4. Mayor-in-council through Mayor, Bilaspur Municipal Corporation,

Vikas Bhawan, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur

(C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Shri Kishore Bhaduri & Shri Anumeh

Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri S.C. Verma & Sandeep S. Tiwari, Adv.

For State : Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

0 3 /11/2017

(1)

The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 30^th July, 2016 resolving

the arbitral dispute between the parties and thereby granting an award of

Rs. 2,03,51,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner-

Corporation.

(2)

Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by the Arbitral

Tribunal, petitioner herein preferred an application under Section 34(2) of

2

the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Act of 1996”) and also

filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the

application was barred by 11 months and 29 days before the Commercial

Court (District Level), Naya Raipur.

(3)

By the impugned order, Commercial Court (District Level), rejected

the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 holding that

application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 along with application under

Section 5 of the Act, 1963 is not maintainable and further held that

Commercial Court cannot entertain the application after the period of 120

days from the date of receipt of the award.

(4)

Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of Commercial Court

(District Level), the petitioner preferred instant writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India stating that delay caused in preferring

application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 be condoned and matter

be remanded back to the Commercial Court for consideration on merits

as the case in hand involves great public importance and huge public

money.

(5)

Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the delay in filing the application occurred due to

procedural requirements mandatory to be fulfilled before proceeding

ahead with the filing of the appeal, which is purely bonafide in nature. He

further submits that since huge amount of public money is involved in this

case, the delay in filing the application be condoned in exercise of

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of

3

D.R. Industries Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India & others¹ in

support of his case.

(6)

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1 would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned

Commercial Court rejecting application under Section 34(2) of the Act,

1996 on the ground of limitation is appealable under Section 13 (I) of the

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate

Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (henceforth “Act, 2015”), therefore, the

appeal as framed and filed is not maintainable. He would further submit

that when the petitioner’s remedy is barred by limitation under the Act of

1996, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India cannot b