Case Note & Summary
The applicant, M/s Globe Capital Market Ltd., filed a notice of motion in an arbitration petition seeking condonation of delay of 144 days in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant had earlier filed a challenge petition before the District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, which was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The applicant then filed the present petition in the Bombay High Court. The delay occurred due to the time taken in obtaining the returned papers from the Delhi court and in complying with the format requirements of the Bombay High Court. The respondent opposed the condonation. The court, relying on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, held that the time spent bona fide in the earlier proceeding before the court lacking jurisdiction should be excluded. The court found that the applicant had acted with due diligence and the delay was not intentional. Accordingly, the notice of motion was allowed, and the delay was condoned. The arbitration petition was directed to be placed for hearing on merits.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 14 - Exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceeding in court lacking jurisdiction - The applicant filed a challenge petition before the District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, which was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of territorial jurisdiction. The subsequent petition in Bombay High Court was delayed by 144 days. The court held that the time spent in the earlier proceeding bona fide was liable to be excluded under Section 14, and the delay was condoned. (Paras 1-4)
B) Arbitration - Challenge to Award - Limitation - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petition under Section 34 was filed within the period of limitation after excluding the time spent in the earlier proceeding. The court allowed the notice of motion and condoned the delay. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 144 days in filing the arbitration petition should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the earlier petition was returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The notice of motion is allowed. The delay of 144 days in filing the arbitration petition is condoned. The arbitration petition to be placed for hearing on merits.
Law Points
- Section 14 of Limitation Act applies to arbitration petitions
- exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceeding in court lacking jurisdiction
- delay condoned if due diligence shown
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 246
Notice of Motion No.1457 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.88 of 2016
Dr. Anurag Agarwal a/w Ms. Kokila Kalra for the Applicant/Petitioner; Mr. Zain Mookhi a/w Mr. Sunil Vyas and Mr. Birrul Mohamedi i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent.
M/s Globe Capital Market Ltd.
M/s HRIM Finance and Securities Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Notice of motion for condonation of delay in filing an arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of delay of 144 days in filing the arbitration petition.
Filing Reason
The earlier challenge petition was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the subsequent petition was delayed due to procedural formalities.
Previous Decisions
The District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, returned the earlier petition under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the delay of 144 days in filing the arbitration petition should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant submitted that the delay was due to the time taken in obtaining the returned papers from the Delhi court and in complying with the format requirements of the Bombay High Court, and that the delay was not intentional.
The respondent opposed the condonation, but the court found that the applicant had acted bona fide and with due diligence.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to arbitration petitions and allows exclusion of time spent bona fide in a proceeding before a court which lacks jurisdiction. The applicant had acted with due diligence, and the delay was not intentional. Hence, the delay was condoned.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rules on exclusion of time spent in proceeding bona fide in a court which lacked jurisdiction or was unable to entertain the proceeding for a like reason.
The court came to a conclusion that as per the agreement between the parties, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the challenge petition.
Procedural History
The applicant initially filed a challenge petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. That petition was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The applicant then filed the present arbitration petition in the Bombay High Court on 20 January 2016, with a delay of 144 days. The applicant filed Notice of Motion No.1457 of 2016 seeking condonation of that delay.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 10
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
