MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. PRAKASH & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant seeks review of the order dated 12.04.2013. By that order, this Court had rejected the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. The latter had refused to consider the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of delay.

(2.) THE facts emerging from the record of the order to be reviewed would disclose that the original petition under Section 34 apparently was filed in time; however, defects were notified, as a consequence of which, the file was taken back. It was refiled after 233 days, i.e., much after the period notified and permissible in terms of the Rules. The Division Bench considered the pleadings that were urged before the learned Single Judge including the application for condonation of delay and applying the ratio in The Executive Engineer (Irrigation and Flood Control) v. Shree Ram Construction Co., 2010 (120) DRJ 615 which was apparently reiterated in another judgment, i.e., Grid Corporation of India v. BWL Limited (which was carried in appeal by Special Leave to the Supreme Court being S.L.P.34349/2010 where the Division Bench ruling was affirmed), dismissed the appeal.

(3.) IT is urged on behalf of the Review Petitioner that the Court fell into an error in not properly appreciating the averments made in the application for condonation of delay especially the contents of the affidavit sworn to by the counsel for the petitioner/appellant. Great stress was laid upon the fact that the Division Bench overlooked this affidavit and the orders sought to be reviewed have faulted the appellant in not acting diligently. Learned counsel placed emphasis upon the counsel's affidavit and the relative averments made in the condonation of delay application to say that the delay was unintended and occasioned by factors beyond the control of the concerned party, i.e., the appellant.