Dismissed

Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited & Ors. v. Religare Finvest Limited

Delhi HC4 Jan 2024O.M.P. (COMM)/98/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 with a delay-condonation application, claiming they missed a virtual hearing due to network issues and received no further notice. Despite repeated opportunities over several hearings, they never filed a supporting affidavit. The court found the averments bald and dismissed the petition along with pending applications.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited & Ors. Vs Religare… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P. (COMM) 98/2023, I.A. 4655/2023 & 4656/2023

¶4

SURYA LANDMARK DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: None. versus

¶5

RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kushal Mittal, Adv. (M. 7784065429)

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 04.01.2024

¶7

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶8

This is a petition filed by the Petitioners- Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited and two of its Directors under Section 34 challenging the impugned award dated 31st May, 2022 passed by the ld. Sole Arbitrator. The matter was heard on 10th March, 2023 on which date, the Court passed the following order:

¶9

“2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 02.09.2021, when the arbitration proceedings were listed before the learned Arbitrator, the petitioners could not join the proceedings through virtual mode, due to some network issues. Later, on a telephonic conversation with the learned Arbitrator, the petitioners were informed that the next date of hearing would be confirmed to the petitioners through notice. The petitioners thereafter kept waiting for the receipt of such notice of the next date of hearing, however, in December 2022 learnt that the learned Arbitrator has already passed the impugned Award.

¶10

3. I have perused from the petition that barring the

¶11

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 15:01:29

¶12

above assertion, the petitioners have not filed the affidavit of the person who purportedly contacted the learned Arbitrator and was informed of the above. There is also no mention as to when and how the copy of the impugned Arbitral Award was received by the petitioners.

¶13

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the affidavit in support of the above assertions.

¶14

5. List on 19th April, 2023.”

¶15

The petition is delayed, and condonation of delay of 210 days has been sought vide I.A. 4656/2023 . The reason for seeking condonation is that the certified copy of the award dated 16th December, 2022 was obtained only on 20th December, 2023. The allegation made in the application has already been captured in the order dated 10th March, 2023. The averment in the application is obviously a bald assertion and despite repeated opportunities given to the Petitioner to file an affidavit as to who contacted the Arbitrator the said affidavit has not come on record.

¶16

The matter has been adjourned on 19th April, 2023, 12th July, 2023 and on 13th October, 2023 on account of the non-filing of the affidavit in compliance with order dated 10th March, 2023. Vide order 13th October, 2023 this Court granted a last opportunity to place the said affidavit on record within four weeks. The said order is extracted as under:

¶17

“1. The affidavit stated to have been filed by the petitioner is still not on record. As prayed for, the petitioner is granted further four weeks time by way of a last opportunity to have the same placed on record. 2. List on 04.01.2024.”

¶18

This Court observes that it has been repeatedly stated that the requisite affidavit was filed, but the same had not come on record. Even to

¶19

¶20

this date, the said affidavit has not come on record. Consequently, the averment made in the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, does not inspire any confidence. Clearly, the Petitioner was well aware of the arbitral proceedings. There is no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner even today.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶22

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶23

JANURARY 04, 2024 dj/bh

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 15:01:29

Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited & Ors. v. Religare Finvest Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited & Ors. v. Religare Finvest Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

Rishi Lal Gupta Vs Uttam Chemical Udyog & Ors.

Winzo Games Private Limited Vs Bajaar Llc and Ors.

Amar Singh Bhatia & Anr. Vs Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors.

M/S Smas Auto Leasing India Private Limited Vs M/S Karthik Travels Private Limited

Airports Authority of India Vs Meenambakkam Realty Private Limited