9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1366 - SC - Indian LawsRefusal to condone a period of 65 days in re-filing the objections Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - HELD THAT - Section 34(3) has no Application in re-filing the Petition but only applies to the initial filing of the objections Under Section 34 of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Rule 5(3) of the Delhi High Court Rules states that if the Memorandum of Appeal is filed and particular time is granted by the Deputy Registrar it shall be considered as fresh institution. If this Rule is strictly applied in this case it would mean that any re-filing beyond 7 days would be a fresh institution. However it is a matter of record that 5 extensions were given beyond 7 days. Undoubtedly at the end of the extensions it would amount to re-filing. Also Petitioner has offered an explanation for the delay for the period after the extensions. It is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned Order - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court granted leave to the Appellant who challenged the Delhi High Court's decision to not condone a 65-day delay in re-filing objections under Section 34 of the Act. The objections were initially filed within the stipulated time but an extension was granted to remove them, which was not done promptly. The Appellant, Northern Railway, cited the delay in arranging court fees as the reason. The Respondent argued that Section 34(3) of the Act prohibits re-filing beyond a specified period, but the Court found this provision inapplicable to re-filing. The Respondent also referred to Rule 5(3) of the Delhi High Court Rules, stating that re-filing beyond 7 days would be considered a fresh institution, but multiple extensions were granted in this case, leading to the conclusion of re-filing. 2. The Court rejected the Respondent's contention, considering the Appellant's explanation for the delay post-extensions. The judges noted the overall circumstances and decided to set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal. The impugned order was overturned, directing the objections to be taken on the court's file for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The parties were instructed to appear before the appropriate court on a specified date after obtaining a certified copy of the order.
|
