9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diligent in obtaining and filing the requisite court fees. Merely because a substantial amount was required to be paid as court fees, cannot be a ground to circumvent the statutory provision of limitation. In arbitration matters, the limitation has to be strictly construed and the parties cannot be permitted to frustrate the very purpose of the Act. Even after the court fee was paid, the appellant took over thirty days in removing the defects. Merely because a soft copy was required would not take the appellant over thirty days in preparation of a soft copy. The appellant re-filed the petition repeatedly without curing the defects - the appellant has not been diligent in pursuing the petition and has taken substantial time in removal of the defects. No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming for the condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petition. Appeal dismissed. - FAO(OS) 436/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Hon ble Mr. Badar Durrez Ahmed And Hon ble Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Jagjit Singh with Mr. Shivanshu Bajpai. For the Respondents: Ms. Manmeet Arora and Ms. Mansi Sharma. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the petition, because earlier there used court fee of Rs 20/ for filing objections against the award. While taking decision for filing the objections no amount of court fees was sanctioned and due to shortage of time. 8. That the Registry after filing of the aforesaid petition had raised objections that the petitioner/applicant should mention the awarded amount in the objection and court fee be affixed accordingly as relevant rules. 9. That accordingly the Petitioner/Applicant through Counsel added the valuation in the objection Petition by calculating the same and requested the officials of the Railways to arrange the court fee. 10. That the award has been given by the Arbitrator is almost about 9 Crore. The huge amount of court fees was to be paid. The Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant accordingly informed the officials of Railways that more than Rs.8,92,000/- amount of court fees was required to be affixed and they should get the sanction for said amount and pay to the Counsel so that requisite court fees be applied and affixed to the Petition. 11. That a cheque dated 04/02/2013 of Rs.8,94,179/- was received in the office of counsel and same was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion seeking condonation of delay in re-filing, has contended as under:- 2. The Petitioner/Applicant has been wilfully negligent in filing the petition and having the same listed. The present application evidences the negligence inasmuch as the Petitioner/Applicant fails to even disclose the exact days in respect whereof condonation has been prayed for. As per Rule 5, Chapter I, Part A, Volume 5 of the High Court Rules and Orders (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court Rules'), the objections have to be re-filed within a time not exceeding seven (7) days at a time, and thirty (30) days in aggregate to be fixed by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, Incharge of the Filing Counter. Rule 5(3) read with the note also makes it abundantly clear that in case the petition is filed beyond the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar. In-charge of the Filing Counter, it shall be considered fresh institution. In the present case it is a matter of record that (1) the Petitioner/Applicant exceeded the aggregate period of 30 days permissible for re-filing and (2) the Petitioner/Applicant re-filed the petition beyond the period specified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is not satisfactory. The learned Single Judge held that there is no explanation as to why despite the amendment to the Court Fee Statute having taken place in July 2008 itself, the petition was filed on 23.01.2013, in the first place, without the requisite court fees. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision in Ashok Kumar Parmar v. D.C.Sankiila : 1995 RLR 85 held that non-filing of the court fees is a substantive defect which renders the filing itself non est. Besides that, the learned Single Judge found that there was no explanation as to why it would take a month to deposit the requisite court fees and nearly two months to cure the defects and re-file the petition. As regards the delay in re-filing between March and April, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the explanation offered is that a practice direction was issued by this Court requiring a soft copy of the petition to be filed and this took some time. The learned Single Judge did not find the explanation satisfactory and held that preparation of a soft copy of the petition, by no stretch of imagination, could take as long as thirty days. The learned Single Judge noticed that more than two years had pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
