Full Text
Translation output
-JT' HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 550/2013
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ERSTWHILE PART OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI..... Appellant
Through: Mr Sanjeev Sagar, Adv. with Mr Monanjay Kumar, Adv.
FAO(OS) 550/2013
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ERSTWHILE PART OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI..... Appellant
Through: Mr Sanjeev Sagar, Adv. with Mr Monanjay Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
M/S RINKLE INTERNATIONAL CO Respondent
Through: Mr Paritosh Budhiraja, Adv. AND
Through: Mr Paritosh Budhiraja, Adv. AND
FAO(OS) 552/2013
PART OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant
N
PART OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant
N
VERSUS
M/S SAIN & SONS Respondent AND
FAO(OS) 553/2013
VERSUS
M/S AKAL CREATIONS Respondent 2013:DHC:7362-DB
AND
FAO(OS) 559/2013
VERSUS
M/S MOD INDIA TRADING CO Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
02.12.2013 CM No. 19068/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 550/2013
CM No. 19078/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 552/2013 CM No. 19081/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 553/2013
CM No. 19153/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 559/2013 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exception.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
02.12.2013 CM No. 19068/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 550/2013
CM No. 19078/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 552/2013 CM No. 19081/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 553/2013
CM No. 19153/2013 in FAQ (OS) No. 559/2013 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exception.
FAQ (OS) 550/2013 & CM Nos. 19069-70/2013
FAQ (OS) 552/2013 & CM Nos. 19079-80/2013
FAQ (OS) 553/2013 & CM Nos. 19082-83/2013
FAQ (OS) 559/2013 & CM Nos. 19154-55/2013
These appeals have been filed against separate impugned orders, all dated 19.08.2013 whereby the learned single judge of this court has dismissed separate applications under section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') purely on the ground that they had been preferred beyond the time prescribed under section 34(3) of the said Act. It is an admitted position that in all these cases the petition under section 34
/
#'•
\ of the said Act had been filed well beyond the time stipulated in section 34(3) of the said Act. Solely on this ground, the learned
Single Judge, taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union ofIndia v. Povular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC
470 has dismissed the applications. We may point out that in
Popular Construction Co. {supra) the sole question for determination was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to an application challenging an award, under section 34 of the said Act. The Supreme Court answered the said question in the negative and categorically held that byvirtueof section 34(3) of the saidAct, recourse to the court against an arbitral award cannot be made beyond the period prescribed. The learned Single Judge has followed the law declared by the Supreme
Court and we do not see any error in the impugned orders.
Consequently the appeals are dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 02,2013 kb
These appeals have been filed against separate impugned orders, all dated 19.08.2013 whereby the learned single judge of this court has dismissed separate applications under section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') purely on the ground that they had been preferred beyond the time prescribed under section 34(3) of the said Act. It is an admitted position that in all these cases the petition under section 34
/
#'•
\ of the said Act had been filed well beyond the time stipulated in section 34(3) of the said Act. Solely on this ground, the learned
Single Judge, taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union ofIndia v. Povular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC
470 has dismissed the applications. We may point out that in
Popular Construction Co. {supra) the sole question for determination was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to an application challenging an award, under section 34 of the said Act. The Supreme Court answered the said question in the negative and categorically held that byvirtueof section 34(3) of the saidAct, recourse to the court against an arbitral award cannot be made beyond the period prescribed. The learned Single Judge has followed the law declared by the Supreme
Court and we do not see any error in the impugned orders.
Consequently the appeals are dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 02,2013 kb
JUDGMENT