Dismissed

Union of India v. M/S Pnsc Infrastructure P. Ltd. .

Delhi HC4 Jan 2024O.M.P. (COMM)/2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Citing precedents, the court held that the petition was filed beyond the maximum permissible period of 3 months and 30 days, with no jurisdiction to extend further.

What did the court decide?

I.A. 135/2024 rejected; Petition O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2024 and all pending applications disposed of.

Union of India Vs M/S Pnsc Infrastructure P. Ltd. . — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2024 & I.A. 134-137/2024

¶4

UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S PNSC INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD . ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 04.01.2024

¶8

O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2024 & I.A. 135/2024

¶9

This petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], has been filed by the Union of India [“UOI”] against an arbitral award dated 20.07.2021.

¶10

Although, the petitioner has filed I.A. 135/2024 seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing of the petition, the delay in fact, appears to be far longer.

¶11

The relevant facts for the purpose of computation of delay are as

¶12

follows:-

¶13

Date	Particular	s			Reference
20.07.2021	The Awa received b	rd ythe	was ma petitione	de and r.	Stamp at page 30 of thepetition.
28.10.2021	A petition the Act petitioner Court,Tis	und was befo Haza	er Sectio filed re the ri.	n 34 of by the District	Filing date at page 173 of the petition.
18.07.2023	The lear	ned	District	Court	Page 145 of the

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2024

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2024 at 15:17:21

¶17

	returned petitione had no j the petiti file the within 30	the petition to the r on the ground that it urisdiction to entertain on, with a direction to same before this Court days.	petition.
04.10.2023	The pet certified learned 18.07.20	itioner applied for a copy of the order of the District Court dated 23.	Paragraph 2(f) of I.A. 135/2024
17.10.2023	The ce aforesaid learned petitione	rtified copy of the order was received by counsel for the r.	Paragraph 2(f) of I.A. 135/2024
27.11.2023	The pres thisCour	ent petition was filed in t.

¶18

Under Section 34(3) of the Act, the period of limitation for filing of a petition for setting aside of an Award is 3 months. The aforesaid period can be extended by a maximum period of 30 days in terms of the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act.

¶19

In the present case, the facts mentioned above show that a period of 3 months and 7 days had lapsed before the petitioner filed the petition in the District Court. The matter remained pending before the learned District Court until 18.07.2023. Proceeding on the basis that the petitioner is entitled to exclusion of this entire period from the computation of limitation, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petition ought to have been filed in this Court within 23 days thereafter, i.e. by 10.08.2023, or, at any rate, within the period of 30 days granted by the District Court. The petition was in fact filed only on 28.11.2023, i.e. after a period of more than 3 months thereafter.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2024

¶22

¶23

Mr. Vineet Dhanda, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for UOI, points out that some time was taken in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the District Court dated 18.07.2023. As mentioned above, that period was of 13 days [04.10.2023 to 17.10. 2023]. It is clear from these dates that no application had even been made on behalf of the petitioner, for a certified copy of the order, before the maximum condonable period of delay had already lapsed, or within the period granted by the learned District Court for filing of the petition in this Court. Thus, even if the benefit of this period is also given to the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the present petition has still been filed well out of time.

¶24

The judgments of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tejparas Associates & Exports (P) Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 435 and Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, (2022) 4 SCC 162 clearly hold that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation for filing of a petition under Section 34 of the Act beyond the period of 3 months, plus 30 days, specified in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act.

¶25