2012 (7) TMI 986 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the objection petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Examination of sufficient cause for delay in re-filing.
3. Applicability of legal precedents and statutory scheme under the Act.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Objection Petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The appellant, Delhi Transco Ltd., challenged the order dated 05.01.2012, where the learned Single Judge dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the objection petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The initial objections were filed within the limitation period but were returned under defect, leading to a 72-day delay in re-filing.

Examination of Sufficient Cause for Delay in Re-filing:
The appellant argued that the delay was due to the objection petition being mistakenly tagged with other files and remained untraceable until 18.09.2011. The learned Single Judge, however, found that the appellant failed to disclose sufficient reasons for the delay, deeming the application casual and lacking specific details.

Applicability of Legal Precedents and Statutory Scheme under the Act:
The appellant relied on the decision in Competent Placement Services, which suggested a more lenient approach for condonation of delay in re-filing compared to the initial filing. However, the Division Bench in Shree Ram Construction Co. emphasized that the statutory scheme under the Act does not permit indefinite delays, and the Court must adopt stringent norms for condonation of delay in re-filing, especially when it extends beyond the statutory period of three months and thirty days.

The Court concluded that the appellant's conduct was careless and negligent, and the delay was not due to bona fide reasons. The appellant's legal department failed to ensure timely re-filing, and the delay was attributed to inaction and negligence. The learned Single Judge's decision was upheld, emphasizing that condonation of delay in such circumstances would defeat the statutory scheme of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's view that the appellant did not provide sufficient cause for the delay in re-filing the objection petition, and the delay was due to carelessness and negligence. The statutory scheme under the Act and relevant legal precedents were correctly applied, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.