Dismissed

Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital v. M/S Gorkha Security Services

Delhi HC14 Nov 2017FAO(OS) (COMM)/196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-Court appeal challenged an order dismissing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by limitation. The High Court, upholding the strict time limits on setting aside awards, dismissed the appeal for want of sufficient cause to condone the significant delay. The Court declined to issue notice on the condonation application due to lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking condonation of delay dismissed; intra-Court appeal treated as dismissed.

Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital Vs M/S Gorkha Security Services — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 196/2017 & C.M.No.41072/2017 (delay)

¶4

BABU JAGJIVAN RAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL..... Appellant Through Mr. Devesh Singh, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES ..... Respondent Through

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶8

O R D E R % 14.11.2017

¶9

This intra-Court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) impugns order dated 7^th March, 2017, whereby petition/objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act were held to be barred by limitation.

¶10

The appeal, which goes into as many as 18 typed pages, challenges and questions the award dated 23^rd May, 2016 on merits. The impugned order does not examine the objections under Section 34 on merits, as they were filed belatedly, beyond the time of 90 days stipulated in the Act and also beyond the further period of 30 days.

¶11

The award dated 23^rd May, 2016 was served on the counsel for the appellant on 23^rd May, 2016. The petition/objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed on 6^th March, 2017, after a period of 192 days. The delay beyond 30 days cannot be condoned in view of the mandate and provisions of the Section 34(3) which reads:

¶12

"34 (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

¶13

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."

¶14

The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 SCC 518 , emphasised the mandatory nature of the outer time provided in the proviso to Section 34(3) and held that an application for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act has to be made within the time prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 34 i.e. within three months and a further period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown and not thereafter. Delay thereafter cannot be condoned.

¶15

The present appeal is also belated and delayed by 150 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. However, as we do not find any merit in the present appeal, we are not inclined to issue notice in the application seeking condonation of delay.

¶16

The application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and as a sequitur, the appeal would be also treated as dismissed.

¶17

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶18

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶19

NOVEMBER 14, 2017 NA

Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital v. M/S Gorkha Security Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital v. M/S Gorkha Security Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (International TAXATION)-3, New Delhi

Shakti Tar Udyog Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

The Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Delhi- South Commissionerate Vs Career Launcher India Ltd.

M/S Jupitors Radios Regd. Vs Dcit Special Range X

Hind Global Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Dabur India Ltd.