Surinder Mohan Talwar & Ors v. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 09 Feb 2015 · 2015:DHC:11987
S. Muralidhar
O.M.P. 867/2014
2015:DHC:11987
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging an arbitral award due to an unconvincing explanation for a 980-day delay in filing, refusing to condone the delay.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
O.M.P. 867/2014
SURINDER MOHAN TALWAR & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, proxy counsel for
Mr. Pinku Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mi-. Virender Negi, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
09.02.2015 lA No. 14345 of 2014 (for delay)
ORDER

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 980 days in filing the present petition. The explanation given in the application is that the ^ Petitioner received notice ofthe Award only on 25^*^ July 2014.

2. In the reply filed by the Respondent it is pointed out that in the Execution Petition No. 206 of 2013 an order was passed on 22"^* November 2013 noting that the Judgment Debtor ('JD') has been served. Clearly, therefore, with the service of the execution petition, the details of the award passed were known to the Petitioners even prior to 22"^ November 2013. Therefore, 2015:DHC:11987 the explanation that the Petitioner became aware of the Award only on 27"^ May 2014 is untrue. There was another hearing in the execution petition on 21^^ May 2014 when learned counsel for the JD entered appearance.

3. The explanation for the delay is unconvincing and it cannot be condoned.

4. The application is dismissed. OMP No. 867 of 2014 & lA No. 14343 of 2014 (for stay)

5. Consequently, the petition and the pending application are dismissed.

S.MIIRALIDHAR, J FEBRUARY 09, 2015 Rk