Full Judgment Text
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (OS) 198/2008
M/s Tantia Constructions Ltd.
(formerly known as Tantia
Construction Co.Ltd.) .... Appellant
Through Mr.S.K. Jain, Advocate
versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.S.M. Chopra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? N
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? N
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? N
O R D E R
% 11-8-2008
1. This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of the
petition of the appellant for enlargement of time for making the
award. It is an admitted position that the disputes between the
appellant and the respondents were referred for arbitration vide
th
order of this Court passed on 19 February, 1996 and this Court
directed Engineer Members of DDA to appoint an Arbitrator. The
Engineer Members DDA appointed Shri Suresh Mehta as the
Arbitrator. Shri Suresh Mehta entered into the reference vide
th
letter dated 12 April, 1996. After Shri Suresh Mehta, Shri R.B.
FAO(OS) No.198/2008 page 1 of 3
Malhotra took over the charge and continued the proceedings
th
vide letter dated 10 September, 1997 and directed the parties to
nd
appear before him on 22 October, 1997. After Shri R.B.
Malhotra, Shri N.K. Sharma took over the charge and continued
th
with the arbitration proceedings. On 7 September, 1998, the
Arbitrator Shri N.K. Sharma passed the following order:
“....... A request for enlargement of time was
received from the claimants vide
No.TCCL/D/SE/ARBN/96-97/130, dated 9.9.96
i.e. after approximately five months of entering
into the reference by the arbitrator.
In terms of clause 28(2) of the Arbitration
Act, 1940, the Arbitrator had become functus
officio much before the request for
enlargement of time for making and publishing
the award was made by the claimant.
Notwithstanding the fact that the
arbitration proceedings had been continued by
the Arbitrator, the same have got vitiated in
view of the above. The case is, therefore,
adjourned SINE DIE.”
2. However, the appellant did not make any application even
after this order of September, 1998 and has moved the petition
before the learned single Judge after lapse of more than nine
years of the order. We do not find any error in the order of the
learned single Judge in rejecting this application as hopelessly
barred by delay and laches.
FAO(OS) No.198/2008 page 2 of 3
3. As noted earlier the proceedings were adjourned sine die
th
vide order dated 7 September, 1998 after recording that the
Arbitrator has become functus officio due to want of enlargement
th
of time. Suddenly, out of blue, after about eight years, on 4 July,
2006, Shri S.S. Jain restarted the arbitral proceedings without
there being any authority conferred upon him as an Arbitrator in
the matter or without there being any reference made to him.
th
The respondents vide letter dated 5 May, 2007 informed the
Arbitrator that the Arbitrator had become functus officio since
there was no extension of time by the Court. The Arbitrator
th
during the hearing dated 24 May, 2007 directed the appellant to
get the enlargement of time from the Court and this is how the
petition came before the learned single Judge.
4. In our opinion, the proceedings before Shri S.S.Jain were
clearly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Arbitrator had already
become functus officio for want of enlargement of time.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
Chief Justice
August 11,2008 S. Muralidhar, J
“nm”
FAO(OS) No.198/2008 page 3 of 3
+ FAO (OS) 198/2008
M/s Tantia Constructions Ltd.
(formerly known as Tantia
Construction Co.Ltd.) .... Appellant
Through Mr.S.K. Jain, Advocate
versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.S.M. Chopra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? N
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? N
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? N
O R D E R
% 11-8-2008
1. This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of the
petition of the appellant for enlargement of time for making the
award. It is an admitted position that the disputes between the
appellant and the respondents were referred for arbitration vide
th
order of this Court passed on 19 February, 1996 and this Court
directed Engineer Members of DDA to appoint an Arbitrator. The
Engineer Members DDA appointed Shri Suresh Mehta as the
Arbitrator. Shri Suresh Mehta entered into the reference vide
th
letter dated 12 April, 1996. After Shri Suresh Mehta, Shri R.B.
FAO(OS) No.198/2008 page 1 of 3
Malhotra took over the charge and continued the proceedings
th
vide letter dated 10 September, 1997 and directed the parties to
nd
appear before him on 22 October, 1997. After Shri R.B.
Malhotra, Shri N.K. Sharma took over the charge and continued
th
with the arbitration proceedings. On 7 September, 1998, the
Arbitrator Shri N.K. Sharma passed the following order:
“....... A request for enlargement of time was
received from the claimants vide
No.TCCL/D/SE/ARBN/96-97/130, dated 9.9.96
i.e. after approximately five months of entering
into the reference by the arbitrator.
In terms of clause 28(2) of the Arbitration
Act, 1940, the Arbitrator had become functus
officio much before the request for
enlargement of time for making and publishing
the award was made by the claimant.
Notwithstanding the fact that the
arbitration proceedings had been continued by
the Arbitrator, the same have got vitiated in
view of the above. The case is, therefore,
adjourned SINE DIE.”
2. However, the appellant did not make any application even
after this order of September, 1998 and has moved the petition
before the learned single Judge after lapse of more than nine
years of the order. We do not find any error in the order of the
learned single Judge in rejecting this application as hopelessly
barred by delay and laches.
FAO(OS) No.198/2008 page 2 of 3
3. As noted earlier the proceedings were adjourned sine die
th
vide order dated 7 September, 1998 after recording that the
Arbitrator has become functus officio due to want of enlargement
th
of time. Suddenly, out of blue, after about eight years, on 4 July,
2006, Shri S.S. Jain restarted the arbitral proceedings without
there being any authority conferred upon him as an Arbitrator in
the matter or without there being any reference made to him.
th
The respondents vide letter dated 5 May, 2007 informed the
Arbitrator that the Arbitrator had become functus officio since
there was no extension of time by the Court. The Arbitrator
th
during the hearing dated 24 May, 2007 directed the appellant to
get the enlargement of time from the Court and this is how the
petition came before the learned single Judge.
4. In our opinion, the proceedings before Shri S.S.Jain were
clearly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Arbitrator had already
become functus officio for want of enlargement of time.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
Chief Justice
August 11,2008 S. Muralidhar, J
“nm”
FAO(OS) No.198/2008 page 3 of 3