MAGNUM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 178/2014 (for delay in re -filing)

(2.) THE present application has been filed for condonation of delay in re -filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the arbitral award dated 07.06.2013 passed by the sole arbitrator.

(3.) THE application is contested by the respondent. It is submitted that petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of the Act on 09.09.2013 against an award passed on 07.06.2013 on the premise that they had received copy of the award on 12.06.2013. It is submitted that the period of limitation for filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act had expired on 12.09.2013. The registry raised objection on the petition and returned the same on 10.09.2013 for filing it within a week. The petitioner re -filed the petition on 10.12.2013 and it was again returned on 12.12.2013 and was re -filed on 13.12.2013. It is submitted that there was a delay of 92 days from 13.09.2013 to 13.12.2013 and not of 60 days. It is further submitted that although it is alleged by the petitioner that the missing file was discovered on 04.10.2013, no explanation has been given as to why the objections of the Registry could not be removed within a period of 25 days between 10.09.2013 to 04.10.2013. It is submitted that this itself shows the negligent, casual and indifferent approach on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the file was missing from 04.10.2013 and resurfaced only on 01.12.2013 appears to be untrue as the advance notice by the petitioner addressed to the respondent of the date of hearing bears the date 26.10.2013 which clearly shows that the file was available with the petitioner on that day and thus falsifies the contention that it was discovered on 01.12.2013. It is submitted that the delay of 92 days in re -filing the petition cannot be condoned as the petitioner's approach was reckless and indifferent. In support of their contention the respondent has relied upon the findings in case of Delhi Transco Ltd. and Another v. Hythro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 212 (3) Arb.LR 349 (Delhi) (DB).