Chief Engineer/Tsp/Nr Acting Through Deputy Chief Engineer/Ts Northern Railway, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishal Nirmiti PVT LTD
Facts
The appellant, Chief Engineer/TSP/NR acting through Deputy Chief Engineer/TS Northern Railway, New Delhi, filed an appeal against a judgment dated September 22, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had dismissed the appellant's petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant contended that the dismissal was solely on the ground of delay, and that the case involved public policy due to services rendered by the Railways. The appellant also argued that the award exceeded the contract terms, as the claimant was only entitled to reimbursement of VAT/GST/Sales Tax upon furnishing proof of payment. The objections to the award were admittedly filed beyond the 120-day period prescribed.
Held
The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, meaning no condonation of delay beyond 120 days is permissible. The Court noted that the objections to the award were admittedly filed beyond this 120-day period. While acknowledging that an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing a Section 34 application, the Court found no error in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Court held that it could not entertain the challenge to the award on its merits. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the appellant-petitioner’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, solely on the ground of delay, considering the matter involves public policy and a service rendered to the public by a public service entity (Railways)? Contentions: Appellant: The learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition solely on delay, as the case involves public policy and a service rendered to the public by the Railways. The award is also argued to be beyond the contract, limiting the claimant's entitlement to reimbursement of VAT/GST/Sales Tax upon furnishing evidence of payment. Respondent: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent in this excerpt.
Sections Cited
Section 34, Section 37(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 22nd September, 2022 passed in O.M.P. (Comm.) 404/2022 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing appellant-petitioner’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) solely on the ground of delay. FAO(OS) (COMM) 126/2023 3. He states that the present case is a matter of public policy as it
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.