Allowed

M/S V2 Retail Limited v. M/S S.S Enterprises & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Mar 2016FAO(OS)/510/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal and condoned delay in refiling objections to an arbitration award, imposing costs on the appellant for the lawyer's negligence while setting aside the single judge's order.

What did the court decide?

Delay in refilling objections is condoned; impugned order dated September 25, 2014 is set aside; appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 costs to respondent.

M/S V2 Retail Limited Vs M/S S.S Enterprises & Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 510/2014

¶4

M/S V2 RETAIL LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Vishwendra Verma, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S S.S ENTERPRISES & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sudhir Naagar, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶9

O R D E R % 14.03.2016

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties we note that whereas objections to the award dated December 27, 2012 were filed within the period of limitation prescribed i.e. three months from the date of receipt of signed copy of the award, delay took place on account of refilling.

¶11

The law on the subject is clear. Negligence by a party is seen more stringently vis-a-vis a negligence by the agent. In the instant case the lawyer was negligent.

¶12

This distinction has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge.

¶13

Recompense can flow to the respondents for inconvenience caused by delay in refilling the objections which we note was of about 150 days. To some extent even the Registry of this Court is responsible for the reason the first objection was limited to the objections not being in the format, with a FAO(OS) 510/2014 page 1 of 2

¶14

note appended : that further objections would be raised lateron. Objections have to be listed at the first instance exhaustively and not piecemeal.

¶15

The objections raised are noted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, all of which are attributable to the lawyer. We therefore dispose of the appeal setting aside impugned order dated September 25, 2014. IA No.11785/2013 praying for delay in refilling the objections to be condoned, is allowed. Delay in refilling the objections is condoned subject to the appellant paying to the respondent cost in sum of ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) within four weeks from today.

¶16

The OMP No.740/2013 shall be listed for directions before the Roster Bench on April 25, 2016. On said date proof of payment of costs would be shown and if cost is paid, OMP No.740/2013 shall be heard on merits. We clarify, delay in refilling is condoned subject to payment of costs imposed within the time granted.

¶17

The appeal is disposed of. CM No.22679/2015

¶18

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶20

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶21

MARCH 14, 2016 ‘skb’

¶22

page 2 of 2

¶23

FAO(OS) 510/2014

M/S V2 Retail Limited v. M/S S.S Enterprises & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S V2 Retail Limited v. M/S S.S Enterprises & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Sarin Vs Rita Wadhwa & Anr.

Fairwood Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Fairwood Consultants P Ltd) Vs Gujarat International Finance Tec-City Co. Ltd.

Renu Dhawan & Anr. Vs Sudesh Sharma & Ors.

Department of Electronics and Information Technology Vs Star India Private Ltd.

Mustafa Aleem Siddiqi Vs Rasheeda Siddiqi & Anr.

Navayuga Engineering Co. P Ltd. Vs Public Works Department and Anr.

M/S Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Rds Project Ltd.

M/S Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Rds Project Ltd.

Haryana Financial Corporation Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors.

M/S H R Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Baroda

Director General of Income Tax (Admn.) Vs M/S Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs Uco Bank & Ors.

M/S Stracon India Limited Vs Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India)

Poonam Chopra & Ors. Vs Punjab National Bank