The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition seeking to quash an order rejecting a Section 34 application due to delay. The court held the petition was filed beyond the permissible time limit and found no ground for review.
The Review Petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OP.No.1 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
REV.PET. No. 1 of2018 in OP.No. 179 of 2015 M.A.K. Earth Movers, A Partnership firm rep. by its M. Kulothungan, Old No,17, New No.78, Jaganathan Street, Agaram, Chennai - 600 082. ...Petitioner Vs 1. L & T Finance Limited Registered Office at L & T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001, Corporate office at No.3-B, Laxmi Towers, C-25, 'G' Block, Bandra-kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
Also at: L & T Finance Limited, Represented by its Zonal Legal Manager, Mr. C. Balasubramanian, Montaith Place, 47, Monteith Road, Chennai - 600 008.
1/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
...Respondents
PRAYER: Review Petition is filed under ORDER XLVII RULE 1 r/w Section 114 of Cole of Civil Procedure 1908 praying set aside the order dated 09.09.2016 passed in OP.No.179 of 2015 and A.No.3112 of 2016, on the file of High Court, Madras, filed by the petitioner herein and allow the Review Petition by setting aside the arbitration award No.315 of 2017 dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Jayakumar For Respondents : Mr. T. Dhanyakumar for R1 O R D E R
The above Review Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in OP.No.179 of 2015 on the following grounds:
2/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
(f) The Hon'ble Learned Judge did not
consider an important aspect that whether acknowledgment card contains a seal and signature of the petitioner herein. It is the
contention of the petitioner herein that the petitioner did not receive any post from the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner herein begs to pray that the dates and details of the receiving acknowledgment card by the petitioner as well as 1st respondent.
(i) The Hon'ble Learned Judge without appreciating the merits of the case and gone into limitation point and dismiss the O.P.No.179
of 2015. In fact, the Learned Judge ought to have seen that the 1st respondent herein had given a impugned order to the applicant and
thereafter the same was permitted to challenge before this Hon'ble Court in accordance with law from that day. It is very much true and
3/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
correct that the arbitrator failed to serve
impugned order to the applicant herein. The acknowledgment card relied upon by the 1st respondent had not serve to the applicant
counsel and the Learned Hon'ble Judge had presumed that the signature affixed on the acknowledgment card absolutely belongs to applicant.
(l) The Hon'ble Learned Judge ought to have held that the 1st respondent herein has approached this Hon'ble court with an unclean hands and made a false submission stating that the equipment was already possessed and sold
to the third parties. In fact, the Hon'ble Learned Judge did not go into aspect of merit case despite advanced an arguments to that
effect by relying upon the relevant observation made by the Judges in the earlier hearings.
4/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
which is extracted herein below would clearly indicate that the very same party along with his counsel then appearing on his behalf were permitted to peruse the original records. The Court on perusing the original records had clearly come to the conclusion that not only the second respondent Mr.Kulothungan but also the firm had received the said Award on 25.02.2013 and the acknowledgment card has been signed by them.
"7. As a matter of fact, the record shows, that the award impugned in the present proceedings was also served on Mr.Kulothugan. As would be evident from the cause title, the present proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner via Mr.Kulothungan. The acknowledgment due cards, show receipt
by the partner i.e., respondent No.2 and guarantor of the petitioner i.e., respondent No.3, on 20.05.2013. Furthermore, the record
5/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
shows that the petitioner, i.e., the firm itself
had received the award on 20.05.2013. Section 34 petition has been filed, admittedly, on 30.04.2014. Clearly, the petition is way
beyond time and therefore, cannot be entertained. This Court has no power to condone the delay. [See Union of India V. Popular Construction Co., (2001 (8) SCC 470)]"
received by the firm then the acknowledgment card would definitely possess the seal of the firm. However it is not denied that the second respondent, the partner has received the acknowledgment card. The ground urged is not one that is available for a review.
6/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
This Court does not find any ground for reviewing the said order.
5. The Review Petition is dismissed.
25.02.2020 mrn Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order To, 1. M.A.K. Earth Movers, A Partnership firm rep. by its M. Kulothungan, Old No,17, New No.78, Jaganathan Street, Agaram, Chennai - 600 082. 2. L & T Finance Limited Registered Office at L & T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001, Corporate office at No.3-B, Laxmi Towers, C-25, 'G' Block, Bandra-kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. Also at: L & T Finance Limited, Represented by its Zonal Legal Manager, Mr. C. Balasubramanian, Montaith Place, 47, Monteith Road, Chennai - 600 008. 7/8
OP.No.1 of 2018
P.T.ASHA, J.
mrn
REV.PET. No. 1 of 2018
in
OP.No. 179 of 2015
25.02.2020
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petition on the ground of limitation as the Section 34 application was filed beyond the statutory period.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated any valid grounds to set aside the order dismissing the original petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.Referred¶45
Union of India V. Popular Construction Co., (2001 (8) SCC 470) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.A.K. Earth Movers
L & T Finance Limited
Mr. A. Santosh Kumar
Mr. A. Sasikumar
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
