2015 (5) TMI 1248 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act - failure to explain the undue delay in re-filing - HELD THAT - This court had duly followed this principle while disposing of the application for condonation of delay in re-filing and has not dismissed the application for condonation of delay in re-filing on the ground that the delay was beyond the time specified in Section 34(3) of the Act. The application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to explain the undue delay in re-filing. According to the proposition of law in DDA case 2013 (11) TMI 1527 - DELHI HIGH COURT , on which the applicant has relied, he is required to explain satisfactorily the reason for such delay and the court has clearly observed A liberal approach in condoning the delay in re-filing an application under Section 34 of the Act is not called for . The petitioner was required to explain the delay satisfactorily but here in this case, although the delay was of 84 days in re- filing, the petitioner had claimed and explained the delay of only 24 days. No explanation, what to say satisfactory explanation has come from the petitioner of balance days of 60 days. No explanation for condonation of delay of these 60 days in re-filing has been given by petitioner either in his application CM No. 18445/2013 or during arguments or in written submissions. No ground for review of the order has been made out - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review petition for challenging the order of the court dated 10th September, 2014 in OMP No. 1127/2013. Permission granted to petitioner to move an appropriate application limited in scope. Claim of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Grounds for review petition based on fresh issues not mentioned in the initial application or written submissions. Interpretation of law regarding condonation of delay in re-filing under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Application dismissed for failure to provide satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The review petition was filed to challenge the court's order dated 10th September, 2014, in OMP No. 1127/2013. The petitioner had earlier moved an appeal against this order, but later withdrew it with the liberty to file an appropriate application before the court. The Division Bench granted permission for a limited scope application to re-agitate specific matters argued before the court.

2. The petitioner, in the review petition, raised several grounds not initially mentioned in the application related to the condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court emphasized that the liberty granted was only to challenge specific aspects not addressed in the previous order, without allowing the petitioner to introduce new issues or contentions.

3. The law allows a petitioner to seek a review based on fresh grounds if those facts surfaced after the original order. However, in this case, the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in re-filing, which was crucial for the review petition.

4. The court analyzed the petitioner's claim of delay in re-filing based on vexatious objections by the Registry, citing previous cases for reference. However, the court found discrepancies in the petitioner's explanation for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the review petition.

5. The court referred to specific cases to clarify the legal principles governing the condonation of delay in re-filing under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. It highlighted the importance of diligently pursuing matters to ensure expeditious arbitration proceedings and emphasized the need for a satisfactory explanation for any delay.

6. The court dismissed the review petition as the petitioner failed to explain satisfactorily the reasons for the delay in re-filing, which was crucial under the legal framework governing such applications. The lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 60 days beyond the initially claimed 24 days led to the dismissal of the review petition.

7. In conclusion, the court found no merit in the review application due to the petitioner's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in re-filing, as required by the legal provisions governing such cases. The application was dismissed accordingly.