Machine Tool (India) Ltd. v. Splendor Buildwell (P) Ltd. & Ors.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0888 (Del-HC) Machine Tool (India) Ltd. v. Splendor Buildwell (P) Ltd. & Ors. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, --Application for setting aside arbitral award --Non-issuance of prior notice Condonation of delay in filing petition----Where petitioner had filed an application for challenging the arbitral award beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of arbitral award, then, the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond such period.--MTIL had filed petition for challenging the arbitral award without service of prior notice to the respondents required under section 34(5). The said petition was filed beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. Therefore, an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the petition under section 34. *Held:* The service of prior notice on the other party was mandatory requirement before filing of an application under section 34. Further, an application under section 34 could be filed only within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the arbitral award. However, the delay in filing the application could be condoned for sufficient cause but not exceeding 30 days. But, in the present case, the petition was filed beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of arbitral award. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond such period. Hence, the petition along with an application was dismissed on ground of delay. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 *REFERRED :* Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui & Ors., (1973) 3 SCC 889, M.Y. Ghorpade v. Shivaji Rao M. Poal & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 289, Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti v. The State of Bihar & Ors., (Judgment dated 28-10-2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1841/2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 746/2016), Shamsudeen v. M/s. Shreeram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Anr, Ananthesh Bhakta & Ors. v. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 5359 : 2016 TaxPub(CL) 0506 (SC), Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur & Anr., [Civil Appeal No. 1283 of 1967, dt. 12-9-1967] and Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) Thr. LRs. v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and Ors. 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0449 (SC) FAVOUR : Against the petitioner A.Y. : IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT NAVIN CHAWLA, J. Machine Tool (India) Ltd. v. Splendor Buildwell (P) Ltd. & Ors. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0888 (Del-HC)

Machine Tool (India) Ltd. v. Splendor Buildwell (P) Ltd. & Ors.

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996,

--Application for setting aside arbitral award --Non-issuance of prior notice Condonation of delay in filing petition----Where petitioner had filed an application for challenging the arbitral award beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of arbitral award, then, the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond such period.--MTIL had filed petition for challenging the arbitral award without service of prior notice to the respondents required under section 34(5). The said petition was filed beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. Therefore, an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the petition under section 34. Held: The service of prior notice on the other party was mandatory requirement before filing of an application under section 34. Further, an application under section 34 could be filed only within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the arbitral award. However, the delay in filing the application could be condoned for sufficient cause but not exceeding 30 days. But, in the present case, the petition was filed beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of arbitral award. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond such period. Hence, the petition along with an application was dismissed on ground of delay.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34

REFERRED : Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui & Ors., (1973) 3 SCC 889, M.Y. Ghorpade v. Shivaji Rao M. Poal & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 289, Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti v. The State of Bihar & Ors., (Judgment dated 28-10-2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1841/2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 746/2016), Shamsudeen v. M/s. Shreeram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Anr, Ananthesh Bhakta & Ors. v. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 5359 : 2016 TaxPub(CL) 0506 (SC), Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur & Anr., [Civil Appeal No. 1283 of 1967, dt. 12-9-1967] and Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) Thr. LRs. v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and Ors. 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0449 (SC)

FAVOUR : Against the petitioner

A.Y. :

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

Machine Tool (India) Ltd. v. Splendor Buildwell (P) Ltd. & Ors.