High Court of DelhiCM(M)/80/2016

Union Of India v. Ved Prakash Arora & ANR

2016-01-25Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 80/2016, C.M. No.2674/2016, C.M. No.2675/2016 & C.M. No.2676/2016 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Suman Arora, Adv.

versus VED PRAKASH ARORA & ANR ..... Respondents Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 25.01.2016 This petition has impugned the order dated 29.01.2015 vide the learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the objections filed by the Union of India to an Award dated 27.09.2013 (later corrected on 08.11.2013) The dismissal of the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is specifically an appealable order under Section 27 (i)(b).

The petitioner had admitted not availed of this remedy. The petitioner has come before this Court after a lapse of one year when admittedly the period for filing of an appeal under Section 37 of the said Act stood exhausted by the Statute of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of Bombay High Court in W.P No.9577/2013 titled as Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edward alias Adward

Paul Machado & Ors. wherein her submission is that the impugned order is also based on a similar factual matrix. The impugned order had gone into the question of pecuniary jurisdiction; once it came to a conclusion that it does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction, it could not have proceeded on merits and in view of the ratio of the law laid down by the Bench of the Bombay High Court, the impugned order has been passed illegally.

This Court is not in agreement with this submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is an order passed in a suit proceeding. The petitioner has probably forgotten the fact that the order which has been assailed before the Trial Court was an Award which had been passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Award was assailed by filing objections under Section 34 which stood dismissed and which order was appealable under the Statute under Section 37 of the said Act. The petitioner not having availed of the remedy within the period of limitation, this petition is not maintainable. It is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 25, 2016