Allowed

M/s.Indarya Green Power Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Madras HC1 Oct 2019A/7416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's appeal against an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in representation before an arbitral tribunal. The court held that personal illness of counsel constituted sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.09.2019 of the learned Master dismissing the application for condonation of delay is set aside, and the main application is directed to be numbered.

M/s.Indarya Green Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

A.NO.7416 OF 2019

¶7

¶8

O.P.Diary No.146291 of 2018

¶9

In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and

¶10

In the matter of Arbitration under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and In the matter of award dated 12.09.2018 passed Arbitral Tribunal presided over by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gopal Gowda.

¶11

M/S.INDARYA GREEN POWER PVT LTD 132, II Floor, Thirumala Complex, Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014

¶12

..Applicant/Petitioner/1^st respondent -vs-

¶13

M/S. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD PB NO.979, MOUNT POONAMALLEE ROAD, MANAPAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 089 REP.BY MR.T.S.HARISH, HEAD LEGAL (MIDDLE EAST) AND POWER AGENT

¶14

..1^st Respondent/Claimant/Respondent

¶15

Mr.ABOOBUCKER, S/o.R.Ariff,

¶16

No.25, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

¶17

..2^nd Respondent/2^nd Respondent/2^nd Respondent

¶18

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased

¶19

to the Applicant filed Appeal Application against an order

¶20

dated 12.09.2019 dismissal of Application No.5595/2019 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

O.P.S.R.No.146291 of 2018 filed for condonation of delay of

¶22

¶23

26 days in representing the O.P.SR.No.146291 of 2018 passed by the Learned Master and allow the Appeal Application for the following among other.

¶24

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing and the Court made the following order:

¶25

This application is filed to challenge the order dated 12.09.2019 of the learned Master in Application No.5595 of 2019 in O.P. Diary No.146291 of 2018.

¶26

I heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶27

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

¶28

the award was pronounced by the learned Arbitrator on 12.09.2018 and that it was received by the second respondent on 30.09.2018. Pursuant to that he submitted that the second respondent filed O.P.No.642 of 2019 on 19.12.2018 and the applicant herein filed O.P.SR No.146291 of 2018 on 19.12.2018. Therefore, the O.P.SR.No.146291 of

¶29

2018 was filed within about 81 days from the date of receipt of the award. Thereafter, he submitted that the application No.5595 of 2019 was filed to condone the delay of 26 days in representation. But the said application was misconstrued by the learned Master as an application to condone the delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned counsel further submitted that the application was dismissed by misconstruing in the manner aforesaid.

¶30

4.Upon considering the said submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the order of the learned Master, it is evident that the application No.5595 of 2019 is an application to condone the delay of 26 days in representation. Although Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply with regard to the condonation of

¶31

delay in filing a petition beyond the time prescribed under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the said principles do not apply with regard to the condonation

¶32

¶33

of delay in representation. More over, the delay in representation is only 26 days and in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the applicant has stated that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the junior counsel was suffering from viral fever at the relevant point of time and therefore, the delay has occurred.

¶34

Hence, I am of the view that the said reason constitutes sufficient cause to condone the delay in representation. Therefore, the application is allowed and the order dated 12.09.2019 of the learned Master in A.No.5595 of 2019 is set aside and the Registry is directed to number the O.P.SR.No.146291 of 2018 if it is otherwise in order. Sd/- S.K.R.J 01.10.2019 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) Su.16/10/2019

¶35

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Indarya Green Power Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Indarya Green Power Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

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

M/S.Metropolitan Transport Vs Sowil Limited

M/s Deltronix India limited Vs Mr.K.R.Appavoo

Karnataka Antibiotics Vs Punjab National Bank

Union of India, Rep.by Its General Manager, Vs M/S. C.T. Ramanathan and Co.

R.Vasudevan Vs Way 2 Wealth Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Nepc India Ltd. Vs M/S.Goyal M.G.Gouses Pvt.Ltd