Dismissed

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mafatlal Industries Limited

Delhi HC13 Oct 2025O.M.P. (COMM)/375/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award was filed beyond the statutory 120-day outer limit. Relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents on the mandatory limitation under Section 34(3), the court refused to condone the delay of 139 days and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Mafatlal Industries Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~O-46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 375/2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 13.10.2025

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶5

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

¶6

THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: - DR. S.P. MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTER, JLN MARG, NEW DELHI- 110002. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Standing Counsel with Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha and Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

¶9

HDIL-KALEDONIA, OFFICE NO.3., 6^TH FLOOR, SAHAR ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400069. .....Respondent Through: Mr. D. K. Rustogi, Ms. Anjali Pandey and Mr. Ujjwal Mishra, Advs.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV J U D G E M E N T

¶12

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶13

I.A. 23210/2025 (DELAY OF 139 DAYS IN FILLING THE PETITION)

¶14

The present petition is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) , assailing the Arbitral Award dated 25.01.2025, read with Corrigendum dated 17.03.2025. 2. Undisputedly, the present petition has been filed with a delay. Thus, the instant application has been filed seeking condonation of the said delay.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:25.10.2025 16:50:10

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶19

Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was under a bona fide belief that the instant petition was filed on 15.07.2025, on the basis of the communication which was received by the erstwhile counsel who, unfortunately, has now passed away.

¶20

Irrefutably, it is the trite law that any delay beyond 120 days in filing an application under Section 34 of the Act cannot be condoned. The relevant extract of the aforesaid provision reads as under: -

¶21

“(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:

¶22

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.”

¶23

The Supreme Court in My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Faridabad Implements (P) Ltd,¹ while discussing the scope of the aforenoted provision, has unequivocally held that, in view of the decision in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co .² , the rigid language and scheme of Section 34(3) of the Act, impliedly prohibits any condonation of delay beyond the prescribed 30-day period.

¶24

Furthermore, this Court in the case of Union of India vs. M/S GRGAWA R(J.V.)³ , reiterated that the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Act is mandatory, strict, and inflexible, leaving no scope for relaxation once the statutory period has lapsed.

¶25

1 (2025) 6 SCC 481

¶26

2 (2001) 8 SCC 470

¶27

3 2025:DHC:3374

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:25.10.2025 16:50:10

¶31

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶32

In the instant case, the record manifests that the impugned award is dated 25.01.2025, and the petition was initially filed by the erstwhile counsel on 04.08.2025. The three-month limitation period expired on 25.04.2025, and even allowing the maximum condonation period, the extended limitation would end on 25.05.2025. The petition filed on 04.08.2025 is therefore, 71 days beyond the permissible period, exceeding the statutory limit.

¶33