Allowed

Mr. L.Dhanasekar v. The Cheif Area Manager

Madras HC1 Feb 2023A/550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought to set aside an order dismissing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to delay in re-presentation after being returned for defects. The Court allowed the application, setting aside the Master's order and condoning the delay, holding that the time limit under Section 34 applies to the initial filing, not re-presentation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.12.2022 in Application No.4905 of 2022 was set aside, and the delay in re-presentation was condoned.

Mr. L.Dhanasekar Vs The Cheif Area Manager — Arbitration | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.No.550 of 2023 in Arb.O.P(Com.Div).Dr.No.20571 of 2022

¶2

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY. J.,

¶3

This Application has been filed applicant/petitioner seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Master in Application No.4905 of 2022 in Arb.O.P(Com.Div).Dr.No.20571 of 2022.

¶4

2.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that he has filed the petition under Section 34 in time and he has also paid the full Court fees. However, the same was returned for compliance of certain defects. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner could not able to contact his client, there occurred a delay in re-presentation.

¶5

3.Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he filed an application to condone the delay of 191 days in re-presenting the Arb.O.P(Com.Div).Dr.No.20571 of 2022. However, learned Master has dismissed the same rejected the application stating that petition under Section 34 cannot be filed after 90 days and if sufficient cause is shown it can be received within further period of 30 days and not thereafter and the same cannot be overruled by colouring the delay in re-presentation. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court.

¶6

4.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that he has no objection in allowing this application.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

1/2

¶9

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY. J., rst

¶10

5.In number of cases, this Court has held that the time limit mentioned in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act applies only for filing the Arb.O.P., to set aside the arbitral award and not for the re-presentation. Further, this Court has condoned the delay even if there is deficit Court fees.

¶11

6.In view of the above submissions made by either side counsel, it is seen that the Arb.O.P was filed in time and the Court fees also paid in full. Further, this Court is satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶12

7.Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for and the order passed by the learned Master dated 22.12.2022 in Application No.4905 of 2022 in Arb.O.P(Com.Div).Dr.No.20571 of 2022 i s set aside and the delay is condoned.

¶13

01.02.2023

¶14

rst

¶15

A.No.550 of 2023 in Arb.O.P(Com.Div).Dr.No.20571 of 2022

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

2/2

Mr. L.Dhanasekar v. The Cheif Area Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. L.Dhanasekar v. The Cheif Area Manager

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

M/s.Samriddhi Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, Rep.by its Director Vs M/s. Dailmer Financial Services India Private Limited

Mr.K.a.Ali Kunju Vs M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Representative Ms.Muthulakshmi Jayaraman

Govindasamy Vs Munusamy

Sri Vidhya K.Arjun Vs R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)

N.Krishnakumari, Vs R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)

N.Krishnakumari, Vs R.Raghavan (Deceased)