CHHABIL DAS AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two related appeals under sec. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act). Arb. A. No. 03 of 2022 is against the impugned orders dtd. 8/9/2022 passed by the learned Commercial Court in Commercial Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022 and Commercial Suit No. 03 of 2022 praying for condonation of delay in filing the application under sec. 34 of the 1996 Act and to restore Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2022 for adjudication. Arb. A. No. 04 of 2022 is against the impugned orders dtd. 8/9/2022 passed by the learned Commercial Court in Commercial Misc. Case No. 01 of 2022 and Commercial Suit No. 02 of 2022 praying for condonation of delay in filing the application under sec. 34 of the 1996 Act and to restore Commercial Suit No. 02 of 2022 for adjudication.

(2.) The admitted facts necessary for the disposal of the two appeals are set out hereunder. On 8/11/2021, the learned Arbitrator passed Arbitral Awards which the appellant is partially aggrieved of. On 7/12/2021, the appellant filed applications before the learned Arbitrator under sec. 33(1) and (4) of the 1996 Act to seek correction of the amount awarded in the Award. The learned Arbitrator passed orders dtd. 14/4/2022 dismissing the correction applications filed by the appellant. On 15/8/2022, the appellant preferred the applications under sec. 34 of the 1996 Act and since there was delay, the applications for condonation as well. As stated above these applications were dismissed by the learned Commercial Court.

(3.) Mr. Rohan Batra, learned counsel for the appellant, made various submissions before us challenging the impugned orders including the error in computing the period of delay. However, we find considerable merit in the preliminary point of maintainability of these appeals raised by the learned Additional Advocate General and thus propose to dispose them on the point without examining the merits of the cases.