SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED Vs. RECONDO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.K.G.Sukhwani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) IT appears that the respondent herein preferred Arbitration Reference No.178 of 1996 for recovery of the amount against the petitioner herein. It appears that in the said Reference, the petitioner submitted counter claim, which was numbered as Arbitration Reference No.17/2009. There was a delay of 781 days in preferring counter claim and, therefore, the petitioner submitted application being Civil Application No.42 of 2009 in Arbitration Reference No.17 of 2009 requesting to condone the delay. It appears that considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the V.A.Tech Escher Wyas Floval Ltd. V/s. case of M.P.S.E.Board & Anr. reported in 2010 Arb.W.L.J. 116 (SC), learned Tribunal was of the opinion that main Arbitration Reference No.178 of 1996 itself is not maintainable and, therefore, learned Tribunal disposed of the main Arbitration Reference by observing that the same is not maintainable. Despite the fact that learned Tribunal held that the main Arbitration Reference No.178 of 1996 was not maintainable and subsequently, the Tribunal disposed of the same, learned Tribunal considered Civil Application No.42 of 2009 in Arbitration Reference No.17 of 2009 in Arbitration Reference No.178 of 1996 and dismissed the said application, which was submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay in preferring the counter claim in Arbitration Reference No.178 of 1996 and dismissed the same by impugned order dated 22/11/2010. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 22/11/2010 in Civil Application No.42 of 2009 in Arbitration Reference No.17 of 2009 in Arbitration Reference No.178 of 1996, the petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Application u/s.12 of the Act.