Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/97/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 97 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HALEWOOD
LABORATORIES PVT LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KK NAIR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR CB
UPADHYAYA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 01/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned City Civil
Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 1152 of 2009,
whereby the said application was rejected.
2. The
facts in brief are that on account of the dispute between the
petitioner and respondent no. 1 in respect of the claim of respondent
no. 1 under a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy bearing No.
141503/11/2007/00286 issued by the petitioner, the dispute was
referred to arbitration. On conclusion of the arbitration
proceedings, the Arbitrator vide award dated 29.05.2009 directed the
petitioner to settle the loss to stocks for Rs.5,95,374/- along with
interest @ 15% to respondent no. 1 and legal and conveyance expenses
incurred by respondent no. 1.
2.1. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the petitioner preferred
application u/s. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act before
the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. However, since there was
delay in filing the said application, the petitioner preferred Civil
Misc. Application No. 1152 of 2009 for condonation of delay before
the trial Court. The trial Court vide order dated 24.11.2010 rejected
the said application. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. From the record, it appears that the learned Sole
Arbitrator passed the impugned arbitral award on 29.05.2009 and copy
of the said award was received by the petitioner-Company on
02.06.2009. Pursuant to the opinion of its advocate for the
Divisional Office as also the Regional Office of the
petitioner-Company, the matter was assigned to its panel advocate
for preferring appropriate application before the competent Court.
However, the learned advocate after about a month returned the papers
to the petitioner-Company as he was pre-occupied with other matters.
Thereafter, the panel advocate of the petitioner-Company preferred an
application u/s. 34 of the Act. However, in the interregnum period,
since the concerned officers of the Divisional Office were
promoted/transferred the Civil Misc. Application was filed on
25.09.2009, by which time there was delay of 27 days.
4. If
we consider the period of delay, it is only for 27 days and on the
facts on record, I am of the view that the delay ought to have been
condoned in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji &
Ors., AIR 1987 S.C. 1353, wherein, it has been held that in
matters pertaining to delay the Courts should take a lenient view.
5. In
view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the
learned City Civil Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application
No.1152/2000 is quashed and set aside. The concerned trial Court
shall proceed with the hearing of the application preferred u/s. 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and decide the same on
merits, in accordance with law, after condoning the delay caused in
filing the same. It is made clear that this Court has quashed the
order passed by the concerned trial Court not on merits and
therefore, while adjudicating the same, the trial Court concerned
shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its
earlier order.
6. With
the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
/phalguni/
Top