Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (4) TMI 968 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Delay in filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the Award of the learned Arbitrator dated 28.11.2011.

The judgment addresses the delay in filing objections, which was 142 days, and the subsequent delay in refiling, which was 103 days. The reasons provided for the delays include bureaucratic processes within the government department and confusion regarding the payment of additional court fees. The court highlighted that the appellant, being a government entity, cannot seek condonation of delay based on impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology. The Supreme Court's stance in Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd and Anr. 2012 (3) SCC 563 was referenced, emphasizing that public sector enterprises, including the Union of India, are not exempt from the law of limitation. The court stressed that condonation of delay should not be a routine practice for government departments and that they must perform their duties diligently. The judgment underlines that modern technologies are available to streamline processes, and delays cannot be excused solely due to procedural red-tape.

Another aspect considered in the judgment pertains to appeal proceedings arising from objections to an Award. The court referred to a previous case, The Executive Engineer (Irrigation and Flood Control) Vs. Shree Ram Construction Co. 2010 (120) DRJ 615, where the Division Bench of the Court discussed the issue of delay in re-filing petitions related to objections to an Award. The court highlighted the need for a stricter scrutiny in condoning delays in re-filing petitions, especially when the delay exceeds the permissible period under the relevant laws. The judgment emphasized that a liberal approach cannot be adopted in condoning delays at the second stage of proceedings, even if the first stage aims for an early conclusion of the dispute. Ultimately, the court found no sufficient cause to condone the delays in filing or re-filing objections in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates