Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: March 24, 2014
+ CS(OS) No.2149/2012 & I.A. No.12958/2012
M/S MS SHOES EAST LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Pavan Sachdeva, AR
versus
ARIHANT CREDIT CAPITAL MARKET LTD. ..... Defendant
Through Defendant already ex parte.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The abovementioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section
14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, called the “Act”) with a
rd
prayer to pass a judgment in terms of the Award dated 3 June, 2012 and
decree the suit for Rs.93,44,872/- with future interest @ 18% per annum till
the date of realization of payment from the defendant, in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application being
I.A. No.12958/2012 under Section 28 of the Act seeking extension of time
th rd
of arbitration proceedings from 20 August, 2007 till 3 June, 2012, i.e. the
date on which the Award was made by the learned Arbitrator.
th
3. The defendant was served through publication on 6 November, 2013
and also by way of affixation. However, no one appeared on behalf of the
defendant. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated
st
21 January, 2014.
CS(OS) No.2149/2012 Page 1 of 3
4. The contention of the plaintiff is that this Court, under the law, has
power under Section 28 of the Act to extend the time even after the award is
passed. Mr.Pavan Sachdeva, Authorized Representative appearing on behalf
of the plaintiff has referred previous orders passed by this Court in which the
similar application against the other defendants was allowed, the details of
which are given as under:-
th
(i) Order dated 7 October, 2013 passed in CS(OS) No.2065/2012
& I.A. No.12705/2012 (u/s 28 of the Act), titled as “ MS Shoes
East Ltd. vs. Aashish Goel and Co and Ors. ”
th
(ii) Order dated 7 October, 2013 passed in CS(OS) No.2068/2012
& I.A. No.12712/2012 (u/s 28 of the Act), titled as “ MS Shoes
East Ltd. vs. Amrit Lal Bajaj and Co and Ors. ”
th
(iii) Order dated 7 October, 2013 passed in CS(OS) No.2129/2012
& I.A. No.12886/2012 (u/s 28 of the Act), titled as “ MS Shoes
East Ltd. vs. Behari Lal and Co and Ors. ”
th
(iv) Order dated 7 October, 2013 passed in CS(OS) No.2130/2012
& I.A. No.12888/2012 (u/s 28 of the Act), titled as “ MS Shoes
East Ltd. vs. Sahyog Fiscal Services and Ors. ”
th
(v) Order dated 7 October, 2013 passed in CS(OS) No.2267/2012
& I.A. No.13631/2012 (u/s 28 of the Act), titled as “ MS Shoes
East Ltd. vs. Narendra K. Palrecha ”.
5. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court as mentioned above
as well as the submissions made by Mr.Pavan Sachdeva, the application
being I.A. No.12958/2012 is allowed. The time for passing of the award
stand extended as prayed in the application. The same is disposed of
accordingly.
6. As far as the main suit is concerned, few facts are that the plaintiff-
Company had brought out a public issue in January-February, 1995 which
was underwritten by 267 underwriters. The defendant was a part of the 267
underwriters. According to the plaintiff, the liability devolved on the
CS(OS) No.2149/2012 Page 2 of 3
defendant as the issue remained under subscribed. Since underwriters,
including the defendant, failed to fulfill their obligations, a request was made
nd
to Delhi Stock Exchange on 2 May, 1995 to appoint an Arbitrator. As the
Delhi Stock Exchange did not oblige, the plaintiff-Company approached this
Court whereby Ms. Justice Manju Goel (Retd.) was appointed as sole
th
Arbitrator on 14 March, 2007. The defendant chose not to appear before
the Arbitrator whereupon Mr.O.P.Faizi, Advocate was appointed as Amicus
Curiae in this matter and other connected matters for the purpose of
assistance and in order to represent the case of the defendant as per record
available before the learned sole Arbitrator.
7. As mentioned earlier, the award was passed by the learned Arbitrator
rd
on 3 June, 2012. No objections have been filed as yet against the award.
Despite of service, the defendant failed to appear. The prescribed period for
filing the objections has already expired as the defendant failed to file
objections as provided under Sections 30 & 33 of the Act from the date of
service of notice issued in the suit filed under Sections 14 & 17 of the Act.
The similar orders for making the Award a rule of the Court and passing of
decree are passed. Therefore, the relief sought in suit is called for.
8. Accordingly, as prayed, the Award is made a rule of the Court. A
decree is passed in the sum of Rs.93,44,872/- along with future interest @
18% per annum, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The
plaintiff is also entitled for costs.
9. Decree be prepared accordingly in terms as indicated in the Award.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2014
CS(OS) No.2149/2012 Page 3 of 3