Allowed¶18

M/s.Abirami Engineering Construction and Co., v. The Supreintending Engineer

Madras HC4 Aug 2025A/3641/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 16 days delay in re-presenting section 34 petition; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; set aside arbitral award; clerk's inadvertence; lenient view; OSA.No. 66 of 2023 Division Bench; A.No. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No. 9142 of 2022; Master, Madras High Court; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 16 days in re-presenting the original section 34 petition condoned; the application is allowed with no order as to costs. ¶18

M/s.Abirami Engineering Construction and Co., Vs The… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

A.Nos. 3620 of 2025 in

¶2

Arb.OP.D.No.110313 of 2025

¶3

MASTER 04.08.2025

¶4

Order

¶5

This application has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 16 days in representing the original petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 to set aside the arbitral award.

¶6

The reason stated for the delay in representation is that it is due to inadvertence and oversight of the clerk attached to the office of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Now the point to be decided is that whether the delay of 16 days can be condoned or not.

¶8

This court has come across an order of our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 to condone the delay of 267 days in representation in a similar application in which the Hon'ble Division Bench condoned the delay on appeal by deleting the cost imposed. The extracted portion is hereunder.

¶9

“It is seen that the delay has occurred only in respect of re-presenting the original petition filed against the award passed by the first respondent Arbitrator and not in filing the same. Admittedly, this Court has dealt with umpteen number of cases, extending some leniency for condoning the delay. Applying the same analogy and also considering the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in re-presenting the petition papers, this court is inclined to modify the order of the learned Judge, by deleting the costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the appellant, while condoning the delay in re-presenting the petition.”

¶10

This order of Hon'ble Division Bench was followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in A.No. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.NO. 9142 of 2022 and the same was allowed

¶11

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

¶12

without cost. The portion extracted is hereunder.

¶13

" In view of the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge in Applicatiion

¶14

No. 1232 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 which had been modified by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No. 66 of 2023 by judgment dated 29.03.2023, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned master.

¶15

Accordingly, this application is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to

¶16

costs".

¶17

Following the orders passed by our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 which was followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in A.NO. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No. 9142 of 2022, this court has no hestitation to take lenient view in this application and is inclined to allow this application.

¶18

Accordingly, this application is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶19

APN

¶20

MASTER

¶21

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

M/s.Abirami Engineering Construction and Co., v. The Supreintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Abirami Engineering Construction and Co., v. The Supreintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Niyazudin Vs Nil

Mr.S.Deivasigamani Vs M/S. Moss Edifice Private Limited

Ck Marketing Vs Nil

M/s Viprah Technologies Ltd., Vs Mr.Arul Prasad Senniappan

Mr.H.Sunil Kumar Vs Mr.M. Deepak Kumar Samdariya

S.Gokulakrishnan Vs Nil