TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued and in respect whereof written submissions have been filed, has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. 2. Granting liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge concerning the order dated September 10, 2014 the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The Division Bench therefore granted the permission to the petitioner to move an appropriate application and the scope of the application was limited. The petitioner was permitted to re-agitate the matter argued before this court and in respect whereof written submissions had been filed but had not been dealt with by this court in its order. In the present review petition, however, the petitioner had taken up several grounds which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, the delay in re-filing was of 86 days and not of 24 days. 8. In the written submissions filed alongwith main writ petition and application, the petitioner's claim was that there was a delay in refilling only of 24 days which according to him had occurred due to vexatious ways of raising peacemeal objections by the Registry which was beyond the control of the petitioner to get the case listed in court in time and has relied on the findings in the case of:- (i) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh Ors in C.A. No. 2395/2008 decided on 09.06.2010 with C.A. No. 2397/2008 (SC) = paras 2 3. (ii) Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse Anr in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 19530/2013 in SLP (CRL) No. 8596/2013 decided on 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is a pressing need to bring adjudicatory proceedings to a prompt and expeditious conclusion, especially where commercial and business conflicts arise. We think it wholly impermissible to extend or expand the time for concluding judicial proceedings at the second stage, that is, that of refiling, when this is impermissible at the very initial stage, that is, of filing objections to an award. It will be apposite to immediately recall the dicta of Union of India -vs- Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470. We can do no better than reiterate the words therein - the history and scheme of the 1996 Act supports the conclusion that the time- limit prescribed under Section 34 to challenge an award is absolute and inextensible by Court un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing of the special leave petition before it. 11. No proposition of law in condoning of delay in re-filing in the matters under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act had been discussed in the said order. 12. In D.D.A case (supra), the Division Bench of this court laid down the proposition of law that this court would have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in re-filing even if the period extends beyond the time specified in Section 34(3) of the Act. 13. 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 has no merit and is hereby dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
