Greater Ashoka Land & Development Co. (P) Ltd. v. Karan Singh

Delhi High Court · 10 Nov 2014 · 2014:DHC:5840
Valmiki J. Mehta
CMM 998/2014
2014:DHC:5840
civil petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld exclusion of the period spent in earlier arbitration-related litigation from limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, dismissing the petition challenging the trial court's order.

Full Text
Translation output
CMM 998/2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 998/2014
10th November , 2014 GREATER ASHOKA LAND & DEVELOPMENT CO. (P) LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S.Kela, Adv.
VERSUS
KARAN SINGH ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 16.4.2014 which has allowed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the respondent/plaintiff thereby excluding the period from 20.4.1994 to 19.05.2011, inasmuch as, that period was spent in an earlier litigation for reference of disputes to arbitration, and it was found that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration as there is no arbitration clause. 2014:DHC:5840 CMM 998/2014

2. Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been included in the statute only for facts such as the present case because where the respondent-plaintiff earlier sought reference to arbitration, and which is an issue of jurisdiction, and failed, then the time spent in earlier litigation has to be necessarily excluded with respect to calculation of the period of limitation for filing of a civil suit in civil court, and which suit is the present/subject civil suit.

3. Since admittedly the only period excluded is the period spent in earlier litigation where reference was sought to arbitration, I do not find that the impugned order in any manner is illegal in excluding that period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act which has been spent in the earlier litigation.

4. Dismissed.

NOVEMBER 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib