LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-186

SPML INFRA LIMITED Vs. GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED

Decided On February 13, 2020
SPML INFRA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Graphite India Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the present petition. It is stated in the application that the petitioner is regulating its operations from Kolkata office and the Authorized Signatory is a witness and Authorized Signatory in several matters of the petitioner Company. Due to his prior occupancy in other matters, he could not sign the present petition in time. It is further stated that due to non-availability of Mr. Chakraborty, the Authorized OMP(Comm) 494/2019 Page 2 of 15 Signatory, the management of the petitioner decided to authorize another Signatory to sign the instant petition. However, this process took several months and after several discussions, the petition could be signed by the other Authorized Signatory. No other ground has been averred in the application.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that there is only a delay of 28 days and the same should be condoned for the reasons stated in the application. He also submits that the Arbitral Award is perverse as it has awarded a sum of Rs.45,37,000/- with 11% interest to the respondent and has awarded litigation costs which are three times the sum awarded. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits and since there is no delay beyond the permissible period of 120 days, the application should be allowed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel further contends that the petition was initially filed on 17.09.2019 which is within the limitation period. The petition was signed by the Authorized Signatory as well as the counsel for the petitioner and had supporting affidavit, duly signed and notarized. It was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay in filing, beyond the three months period as well as an application for exemption from filing original documents. Both applications were duly signed and supported with affidavits of Authorized Signatory and notarized.