JAYANTRAO Vs. SUMATIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of notice for final disposal already issued, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

(2.) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith.

(3.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 21/12/2013 passed on M.C.A. No.669 of 2013 by the learned Principal District Judge Nagpur, rejecting the application for condoning delay in preferring appeal under the provisions of Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act'). At the outset, Shri Rohit Joshi learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 raised preliminary objection to the tenability of the writ petition on the ground that an alternate remedy under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') was available to the present petitioner for challenging the aforesaid impugned order. He submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay was a separate proceeding in itself and hence the provisions of Section 115 of the Code provided such remedy to the petitioner. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of ITI Ltd. Vs. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., 2002 5 SCC 510 and especially paragraphs 8 to 13 of said judgment. He therefore submitted that it was well settled that when an alternate remedy was available, then jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked.