for example: TATA AIG

  for example: Indian Contract Act

  for example: Ratan Tata

  for example: Negotiable Instruments Act

w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



DDA v/s Bansal Traders


Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2001PTC040133

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1948PLC010149

Company & Directors' Information:- BANSAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC102216

Company & Directors' Information:- B. BANSAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24246UP1996PTC020088

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS & TRADERS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC055444

    O.M.P. No. 1603 of 2014

    Decided On, 12 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

    For the Petitioner: Kanika Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: N.K. Jha, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral:

O.M.P. 1603/2014 & I.A. 25470/2014

1. This is a petition filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. The litigation between the parties has had a long history. The parties had entered into agreement dated 25th February, 1982, which had an arbitration clause. The same had resulted in award dated 29th July, 2004 being passed. The said award was challenged by both parties under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘1996 Act’) vide O.M.P. Nos. 414/2004 & 31/2005.

3. On 7th November, 2007, the said petitions were disposed of and the award was set aside. A new Arbitrator was appointed by consent of parties.

4. Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.,) the newly appointed Sole Arbitrator rendered his award on 12th October, 2012. As per the said award, the claims of Respondent, M/s Bansal Traders were partly allowed and the counter claims were rejected. The Claimant/Respondent filed an execution petition before the Trial Court. In the said execution petition, notice was issued to the DDA. As per the process server report in the said petition, EX. 9/2013, the DDA was served with the petition along with the copy of the award on 22nd May, 2013. In the said Execution proceedings, the Claims of the Respondent/Claimant to the extent they were allowed by the Arbitrator were accepted by DDA and payments were made.

5. The DDA chose to file a petition, in respect of rejection of its Counter Claim, under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14th October, 2014 rejected the said petition with the following observation:-

'11. Accordingly, the suit is returned to the Plaintiff. This would not, however, come in the way of the plaintiff in filing a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, if it would otherwise be maintainable in law.'

6. The present petition was thereafter filed under Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act on 14th November, 2014 and was refiled on 12th December, 2014. Since there was a delay, DDA filed I.A. 25470/2014 praying for condonation of delay.

7. Learned counsel for the DDA has vehemently urged that the entire period during which the petition under Section 14 of the 1940 Act remained pending ought to be excluded for the purposes of determining the delay. She also submits that DDA was entitled to pray for condonation of delay under the 1940 Act. Under the 1996 Act, since DDA was never served with the award from the Arbitrator, it has to be presumed that DDA has no notice of the award. According to her, under Section 34, mere notice of the award is not sufficient but the award has to be served through the Arbitrator.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that DDA was served with the execution petition on 22nd May, 2013; that itself constitutes adequate notice of the award. He also submits that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, only if a bona fide proceeding was pending, the time period can be deducted. It is his submission that DDA was all along aware that the 1996 Act would apply inasmuch as even against the earlier award, O.M.P. 31/2005 was preferred under the 1996 Act and not under the 1940 Act. Thus the benefit of the pendency of the Section 14 petition which is not in good faith ought not to be given. He further submits that the application seeking condonation of delay is bereft of material particulars as it does not even mentioned the number of days for which the condonation of delay is sought.

9. The Court has heard the submissions on behalf of the parties. A perusal of the original arbitral record reveals that the learned Arbitrator had despatched the award to the DDA by speed post on 1st February, 2013, at the same time when it was despatched to the Claimant/Respondent. There are two speed post receipts dated 1st February 2013. The service of the award by speed post ought to be deemed to be adequate service as it is through the governmental postal authorities.

10. Moreover, the DDA was clearly served with the execution petition on 27th May, 2013 which fact is also not seriously disputed by the counsel for the Petitioner.

11. The submission that under the 1940 Act, condonation of delay was permissible does not mean that in each and every case, the Court had to condone the delay. The Court has to see the conduct of the party and depending on the fact of the case, the delay would be either liable to be condoned or rejected. The mere permissibility to condone the delay does not lead to automatic condonation being given in every matter.

12. Admittedly, the DDA was aware that the arbitration proceedings were governed under the 1996 Act as the earlier petition under Section 34 challenging the award was filed under the 1996 Act. Thus there can be no excuse as to why the present award should have been challenged under Section 14 of the 1940 Act, which also lead to wastage of precious judicial time.

13. Moreover, the order dated 14th October, 2014 passed by the Ld. Single Judge has not given the benefit of the period of pendency of Section 14 petition to the Petitioner. The learned Single Judge disposing of the Section 14 petition has observed that the rejection would not come in the way of filing of a petition by the DDA under Section 34 of the 1996 Act `if maintainable in law'.

14. The DDA's filing under Section 14 of the 1940 Act was not genuine or bonafide. If anything, it was an act of serious neglect. The Ld. Arbitrator having sent the Award by speed post - nothing further was required to be done. Moreover, the application is not clear as to when the DDA acquired knowledge of the Award. The statement in the application to the effect "That the Respondent only came to know of the passing of the Impugned Award when it was served with summons from the Ld. Trial Court for hearing dated 1.7.2013 in the Execution proceedings filed by the Respondent. That accordingly the Petitioner attended the said hearing and obtained copy of the Impugned Award from the Execution proceedings" is vague and 11th November 2013 i.e., the date of filing of the Section 14 petition under the 1940 Act, is also not explained in the application. Thus, even if the period, during which the petition under Section 14 remained pending, is given, it will not bring the present petition within limitation.

15. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Supreme Court has held:

'28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.' 16. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, no justifiable grounds exist for condoning the delay. The application seeking condonation is sketchy and does not place all the facts correctly. The delay is not liable to be condoned. Application for condonation of delay is rejected. 17. The OMP is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-02-2020 Ravi Bansal Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-12-2019 Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), Head Load Workers Unit, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Intercontinental Traders, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
05-12-2019 State of NCT of Delhi Versus Shiv Charan Bansal & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Shubham Bansal Versus The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi ) & Another High Court of Delhi
18-11-2019 M/s. Meenakshi Industries, Rep. by its Partner, Salil Bansal, Villupuram Versus The Assistant Commissioner of (CT) Villpuram – II Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 HI-TEK Traders, Changanacherry, Represented by C.C. Joyichan, Managing Partner Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Changanacherry & Others High Court of Kerala
11-11-2019 Prince Bansal Versus M/s. Mercedes Benz India Private Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-11-2019 A.S. Impex, Sole Proprietorship of Rutuparna Dole Versus M/s. Shree Durga Traders, Represented by its Partner, Mukesh Mahajan & Others High Court of Karnataka
31-10-2019 Chitrahar Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Krishnamoorthy, Tirupur Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Assessment Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Traders Represented by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath, Alwarpet Versus T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor, M/s. Sai Packaging Industries, Ambattur, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 Sanjay Bansal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2019 M/S S.D. Traders Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2019 Naresh Bansal Versus State (GNCTD) & Others High Court of Delhi
21-08-2019 Shree Daneshwari Traders V/S Sanjay Jain and Others. Supreme Court of India
14-08-2019 Jagjit Singh @ Jagjit Singh Ahluwalia @ Jagjit Singh Walia @ J S Ahluwalia @ J S Walia Versus Rajesh Bansal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-08-2019 Mahavir Babagonda Patil & Others Versus M/s. Tirupati Traders, A Partnership Concern & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-08-2019 Vettro Traders & Integrated Services, Represented by Its Managing Partner, P.A. Kunjumuhammed Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2019 Combined Traders Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
12-07-2019 M/s. Hasbi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, Sheik Dawood Versus The Chief Engineer / Distribution, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Kusum Bansal Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Another Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
05-07-2019 Thulja Traders, Rep.by its Power Agent, S.R. Guruprasad Versus M/s. Venkatesh Trading Company, Rep. by its Partner, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2019 Vimla Bansal Versus M/s. Unitech Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2019 M/s. Shakti Traders Versus M.P. State Mining Corporation High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-06-2019 Sree Karthick Traders, Rep. by Partner S. Senkuttuvan Versus M/s. Adhithya Textiles Process, Rep. by its Partner N. Balasubramanian & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2019 Ankit Sarda Versus Nukul Bansal High Court of Sikkim
31-05-2019 In the Matter of: Anupama Bansal Versus Suraj Bhan Bansal & Another High Court of Delhi
29-05-2019 Petroleum Traders Welfare & Legal Service Society, Palarivattom, Represented by Its Chairman A.M. Saji & Others Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-05-2019 Divisional Railway Manager, Waltair Railway Division & Another Versus A.I.E. Valley Traders Private Limited & Others High Court of Orissa
06-05-2019 Deepak Aggarwal Versus Nidhi Bansal & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
02-05-2019 Ganpatlal Pawan Kumar Traders Private Ltd. Versus Reserve Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2019 Sanjay Bansal Versus M/s. Vipul Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.) & Another Supreme Court of India
11-04-2019 O.P. Bansal Versus Union Bank of India High Court of Delhi
10-04-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shraddha Traders National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-04-2019 M/s. Paripooranam Steel Traders, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-03-2019 Sahu Shivaji Versus Ma Sakti Steel Traders Proprietor Sujeet Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-02-2019 M/s. Unik Traders, Rep., by its P.A. Holder, Asif H Thara & Others Versus The Assistant/Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2019 M/s. Unik Traders, Rep., by its P.A. Holder, Asif H Thara & Others Versus The Assistant/Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2019 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Dinesh Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
11-02-2019 Surya Timber Traders Versus State Tax Officer, Tirunelveli District High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2019 Piyush Bansal Versus Dr. S.K. Tewari & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-02-2019 Jambu Bisoiani @ Jambhubati Bisoi & Others Versus General Traders & Another High Court of Orissa
05-02-2019 M/s. Radha Krishna Traders & Others Versus Ramprasad Mallick West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2019 Dr. Manish Bansal Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-01-2019 M/s. Priyanka Traders, represented by P/A holder Davis Kadavil & Others Versus P.J. Varghese & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-01-2019 Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ravinder Kumar Suri High Court of Delhi
24-01-2019 M/s. Roshan Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. Versus The State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar-I Asst.Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2019 M/s. Unik Traders, Represented by its P.A Holder Asif H. Thara Versus The Additional Commissioner of Customs High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 M/s. Jay A.R. Enterprises, Partnership firm having Office at No.7, Chennai Versus M/s. Scraft Traders, Rep by its Proprietor, Kolkotta High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 Sri Shanmukha Agro Traders Versus Shanmukha Agritech Limited High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-01-2019 Ved Prakash Versus Navkar Traders & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
16-01-2019 Bahubali Traders (P) Ltd., Coastal Vyapaar (P) Ltd Versus Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2019 Joy Alukkas Traders (India) Private Limited 911, Coimbatore Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax) Officer, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 M/s. Shree Seco Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. S.A. Traders Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
29-11-2018 Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd Versus Ito, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
23-11-2018 Shankunthala Bansal & Others Versus Puspalatha Gadia & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2018 Vijay Traders, Sivakasi Versus Ito Tds Ward, Madurai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
13-11-2018 Vijaya Jyothi Traders, Represented by Its Partner C. Vijayan @ Raghavan, Thrissur Versus Municipal Corporation of Thrissur, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
03-10-2018 Rajesh Bansal & Others Versus CCE, Indore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
20-09-2018 Punjab National Bank Versus M.L. Bansal High Court of Delhi
17-09-2018 D. Napolean Versus M.V.M. Traders, Represented by its Proprietor M. Gopalakrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-09-2018 Uttam Traders Ranghri Versus Tule Ram @ Tula Ram High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-09-2018 Pradipkumar Shivprasad Bansal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-08-2018 Prabhat Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Excel Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-2018 Punjab State Electricity Board Versus M/s. Megh Raj Bansal, Govt. Contractor And Suppliers & Another Supreme Court of India
23-08-2018 Confederation of Sadar Bazar Traders Association (Regd.) Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
17-08-2018 D. G. Traders Versus M/s. W. Newman & Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-08-2018 Rajesh Bansal Alias Montu Versus State High Court of Delhi
09-08-2018 Garuda Timber Traders, Pattambi, Rep. by its Proprietor T.P. Sharafudeen Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-08-2018 M.P. Ganesan, Proprietor of M/s. S.R.S. Traders Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Amaindakarai Assessment Circle, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-08-2018 Sri Venkatesa Traders Rep. by Smt.Vathsala, Salem Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2018 M/s. Century Steel Traders, through its Proprietor, Rajiv Shivji Sharma Versus M/s. Polaris Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors - Pushpendra Pramodkumar Mishra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
31-07-2018 Christian Louboutin Sas Versus Ashish Bansal & Another High Court of Delhi
23-07-2018 Kailash Traders V/S C.C.E., Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
20-07-2018 Acit Circle-1(1)(1), Agra Versus Awasthi Traders, Auraiya Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
19-07-2018 M/s. S. Orra Traders Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Director Sapetendra Behera Versus Lawrence Kulandi Nathan High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-07-2018 Universal Traders V/S CCE, Chandigarh Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
16-07-2018 Ravinder Kumar Bansal & Others Versus Pankaj Gupta & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-06-2018 C.C. Ahmedabad V/S Raj Traders Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
18-06-2018 The State of West Bengal & Others Versus Dr. Rahul Bansal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-06-2018 Maradu Market Traders' Association, Ernakulam, Represented By Its Preseident, S.M. Muhayudheen Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-06-2018 Siya Bansal & Another Versus Securities Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-06-2018 M/s. Khandelwal Steel & Tube Traders, Chennai Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward IX (3), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-05-2018 Vandana Bansal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-05-2018 DIG (ADM) ITBP & Others Versus Mala Bansal & Others High Court of Delhi
11-05-2018 Comm. of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata Versus M/s. Lal Traders & Agencies (P) Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-05-2018 M/s. Anu Akshaya Traders, Rep. by its Partner M. Senthil Kumar & Another Versus State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Tirupur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2018 Ashish Bansal & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-05-2018 New Delhi Traders Association (Regd) & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
02-05-2018 SM Steel Traders V/S CC, Amritsar Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
19-04-2018 Universal Engineers & Traders V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
09-04-2018 The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Salem Versus Tvl. Steel Tube Traders and Agencies, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-04-2018 Siya Bansal & Another Versus Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai & Another SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
05-04-2018 Shyam Traders V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
04-04-2018 M/s. Sharma Traders Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-03-2018 Jai Bajrang Traders Versus Vishal Bansal High Court of Orissa
12-03-2018 Mahavir Traders Versus Ajay Knitwears & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh
01-03-2018 Prashant Vinodkumar Bansal Versus The Estate Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-03-2018 Rajathadri Traders Versus The State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-02-2018 Food Corporation of India, Rep. by its General Manager & Another Versus Sachin Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor, Siddappa Shivappa Kabbur High Court of Karnataka