2012 (9) TMI 1060 - HC - Indian Laws

Arbitration proceedings - Held that - Subject matter of the lis unless determined by the last Court cannot be said to have attained finality. Grant of stay of operation of the judgment may not be of much relevance once the Supreme Court grants special leave and decides to hear the matter on merits. The aforesaid proposition was invoked to hold that the provision contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act was available to the respondent. The said principle cannot be invoked by the appellant to require this Court to stay its hands and not to proceed to dispose of the objection petition or even this appeal particularly when the issues raised by the appellant have attained finality insofar as this Court is concerned. Accordingly we dismiss the aforesaid applications as well as the present appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against order dismissing objections to arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Challenge to arbitral award regarding additional costs due to tax and royalty increase.
3. Request to await Supreme Court decision on related matters.
4. Delay in filing appeal due to Special Leave Petition.
5. Merits of the appeal and relevance of Supreme Court judgment.
6. Applicability of Division Bench judgments and consideration for re-consideration.
7. Dismissal of appeal and applications seeking condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), filed a belated appeal challenging the order dismissing objections to an arbitral award related to a contract agreement for a construction project. The disputes arose concerning additional costs due to tax and royalty increases, which were allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal along with interest. The learned Single Judge noted that the issues were covered by Division Bench judgments and rejected the appellant's request to await the Supreme Court's decision on related matters.

2. The appellant raised a challenge to the rejection of applications under Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the Act by the Arbitral Tribunal. However, the appellant did not contest this rejection before the court. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to a Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit.

3. The appellant argued that the court should have awaited the Supreme Court's decision on the related matters before dismissing the objection petition. The court, after considering the Supreme Court judgment and Division Bench decisions, found no merit in the appeal and declined to issue notice on applications seeking condonation of delay.

4. The court emphasized that the issues raised by the appellant had attained finality in the court's jurisdiction based on the Division Bench judgments. The appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment regarding the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was deemed misplaced, and the court dismissed the appeal and related applications accordingly.

5. Overall, the court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, citing the relevance of Division Bench judgments and the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments. The dismissal of the appeal and applications seeking condonation of delay was based on the finality of the issues in question and the inapplicability of the Supreme Court judgment invoked by the appellant.