TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particularly when the issues raised by the appellant have attained finality insofar as this Court is concerned. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforesaid applications as well as the present appeal. - FAO(OS) 451/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2012 - MR. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND MR. VIPIN SANGHI JJ Through: Ms. Padma Priya Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Advocates. ORDER: 1. The appellant National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in the present belated appeal (delayed by 153 days), assails the order dated 02.03.2012 passed in O.M.P. No. 635/2011 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the objections preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to the arbitral award dated 25.04.2011. The disputes arose between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant founded upon the Supreme Court decision in Union of India Others Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Limited, AIR 2004 SC 1596, to contend that this Court should, in view of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, defer the hearing of the objection petitions to await the decision in the said Special Leave Petitions by observing that similar request had been declined by the Division Bench of this Court in the appeal of M/s OSE-GIL J.V. 4. We may note that the appellant had also raised a challenge to the order dated 10.09.2008 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, rejecting the three applications moved by the appellant under Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the Act. However, no submission has been made by the appellant before us assailing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the appellant and considered the decision of the Supreme Court in West Coast Paper Mills Limited (supra), we are of the view that there is no merit in the present appeal and, consequently, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice on the appellant's applications seeking condonation of delay. The question of our entertaining the application for stay of the impugned judgment, therefore, does not arise. 8. It is not in dispute that the Claims No. 1 3 allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the respondent are totally covered by the judgments of the Division Bench in ITD Cementation Limited (supra) and M/s OSE-GIL J.V. (supra). In fact, the aforesaid decision in ITD Cementation Limited (supra) has even subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of proceedings but also to a legal anathema, which is, the likelihood of different views being expressed by co- ordinate Benches. Needless to state, the Appellant before us will not be precluded from filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such a situation, we are in no manner of doubt that both the SLPs will be heard together. That is, however, for Their Lordships to decide. The impugned Judgment is premised on NHAI vs- ITD Cementation India Ltd., with which we respectfully concur. We also find no error in the impugned Judgment. In these circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed. Pending Application also stands dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not even urged before us that the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
