Full Text
JUDGMENT
M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Trans Juris, Mr Rajiv Kapoor and
Mr Anil Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with
Ms Malavika Lal, Advocate.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in IA No.2283/2014 in OMP No.152/2014. The said IA No.2283/2014 was an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) challenging the award dated 12.08.2013. The relevant paragraphs of the said application are reproduced hereinbelow:- 2015:DHC:5983-DB
2. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the only explanation sought to be given for the delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 was that the Registry had misplaced the file between 18.12.2013 and 18.01.2014. The learned Single Judge had called for a report from the Registry. The report of the Registrar (O), supported by the copies of the relevant pages of the concerned register, was examined by the learned Single Judge and he came to the definite conclusion that the file remained at the Return Counter between 19.12.2013 and 09.01.2014, when it was collected by the counsel for the petitioner and remained with him till 25.01.2014, on which date the same was re-filed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the record falsified the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the said Act.
3. Since the learned counsel for the appellant was insistent that the file had not been taken back on 09.01.2014, as indicated in the report of the register where returns of the petitions/applications are recorded. On going through the „Return Register‟, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are absolutely correct. The learned counsel for the appellant also accepts the position after detailed examination of the Return Register in Court before us.
4. That being the position, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The explanation offered by the appellant has been found to be false and untrue. In these circumstances, the question of condoning the delay does not at all arise. This Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v/s M/s Durga Construction Company: 2013 (139) DRJ 133(DB) while holding that the Court had jurisdiction to condone delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the said Act also held that the jurisdiction was not to be exercised liberally and that the applicant would have to satisfy the Court that it had pursued the matter diligently and that the delay was beyond his control and was unavoidable. The Division Bench, inter alia, held as under:-
5. The facts of the present case do not indicate that the appellant was diligently pursuing the matter and that the delays were beyond the appellant’s control or were unavoidable. What is worse is that an entirely false explanation had been put forth which was contrary to the record. There is a delay of 50 days beyond the time specified in Section 34(3) of the said Act. The said delay cannot be condoned in the circumstances narrated above.
6. We find no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JULY 28, 2015 ‘sn’