Allowed¶14

Numaligarh Refinery Limited, v. M/s. Solar Design Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC26 Aug 2025A/4179/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 12 days delay in re-presentation/refiling of Arb OP (Comm Div) D No.119628 of 2025; delay only in refiling not in filing; petitioner company situated at Assam; lenient view; followed OSA.No. 66 of 2023 (Division Bench; 267 days delay condoned; Rs.25,000/- costs deleted; judgment dated 29.03.2023) and A.No. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No. 9142 of 2022 (Single Judge; allowed without cost); Application No. 1232 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 referred; Madras High Court Master order dated 26.08.2025; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 12 days in representing Arb OP (Comm Div) D No.119628 of 2025 condoned; application allowed with no order as to costs. ¶14

Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Vs M/s. Solar Design Pvt. Ltd. — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.No. 4179 of 2025 in Arb.OP.D.No.119628 of 2025

¶2

MASTER 26.08.2025

¶3

Order

¶4

This application has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 12 days in representing in Arb OP (Comm Div) D No.119628 of 2025.

¶5

The reason stated for the delay in representation is that it is due to the distance of the petitioner company which is situated at Assam.

¶6

Now the point to be decided is that whether the delay of 12 days can be condoned or not.

¶7

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.

¶8

“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.”

¶9

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 without cost. The portion extracted is hereunder.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Though this court is not completely convinced with the reason stated by the applicant. 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, considering the fact that the delay was only in refiling and not in filing. this court has no hestitation to take lenient view in this application and is inclined to allow this application.

¶14

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

¶15

MASTER

¶16

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

Numaligarh Refinery Limited, v. M/s. Solar Design Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Numaligarh Refinery Limited, v. M/s. Solar Design Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu Small Industries Corp Ltd. Vs M/s.Indian Bank

R.Rajikumar Vs Rekha and 2 others

K.Shivakumar and another Vs Seetharajakumari and 5 others

S.Jayakumar Vs Dumpala Parimala and another

Vgn Projects Estates Private Limited Vs B.Sathyanarayanan

Maheswari Prince Andrew Vs K.Kaveri