ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS Vs. ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) on 5th August, 2013 within the period of limitation set out in Section 34(3) of the Act. This Chamber Summons has been sought to be taken out in July, 2014 after the period of limitation set out in the above sub -section has long expired. It has to be seen whether it can be allowed.

(2.) IT is settled law that all amendments sought in a petition under Section 34 are not per se only rejectable. Certain amendments can be allowed despite the period of limitation having expired. The principle upon which the amendments have to be allowed are stated in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. : AIR 2010 SC 1299.

(3.) GROUND A in the petition is that the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the leave and licence agreement is illegal has no legal basis, is perverse and against the public policy of India. Six reasons for that ground are set out. The reasons show that neither the consideration nor the object was unlawful to make the agreement unlawful, that the agreement would not become unlawful because certain fire escape passage was included in the licenced premises, use of premises as office was not prohibited, the presumption of law was in favour of legality of contracts, the issue of illegality raised by the respondent was an afterthought.