ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 03-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
M/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
     (Civil Appeal No. 6524 of 2009)
OCTOBER 03, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND  A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963: ss.3, 5 and 14 – Arbitration Award –
Appellant in order to assail award filed petition u/s.34 before Jaipur
District Court – Objection by respondent that cause of action arose
at Jodhpur – Jaipur District Court held the petition as not
maintainable before it but exercised power under Or.7 r.10 and 10A
and returned the petition to appellant with direction to appear before
District Court Jodhpur on 2.4.2008 for presentation of petition and
proceed with the matter – However, appellant presented the petition
only on 10.4.2008 instead of specified date of 2.4.2008 –
Respondent filed application under s.3 of Limitation Act before
District Court, Jodhpur seeking rejection of petition on the ground
of limitation – Appellant filed application under s.14 of Limitation
Act seeking exclusion of time spent in the proceedings before District
Judge, Jaipur – District Court Jodhpur dismissed the petition under
s.34 of the Act, 1996 on limitation point – Appeal also dismissed by
High Court – Hence instant appeal – Held: The petition filed under
s.34 at Jaipur was within the period of limitation – Delay was for
the period of 8 days in re-presenting the petition beyond the date
fixed after it was returned under Or.7 r.10 CPC – In that
circumstance, even if the term “sufficient cause” as contained under
s.5 of the Limitation Act is taken note, in the facts the same was not
with reference to petition under s.34 of Act, 1996 for condonation
of delay beyond the period prescribed under s.34(3) of Act, 1996 –
District Court, Jaipur had ordered return of the petition for
appropriate presentation and the date was fixed – The correctness
of the said order was not assailed by the respondent seeking
absolute rejection of the petition by raising grounds on the nature
of findings rendered therein since that Court had not held the petition
to be malafide – In such circumstance, the issue of delay arose only
in the context of delay of 8 days in re-presentation as permitted by
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 228
228
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
229
Jaipur Court – Therefore, re-examination of the matter to consider
the entire period spent before the Court at Jaipur as malafide so as
to non-suit the appellant and deny consideration of proceedings
under s.34 of Act, 1996 which was initiated within the period of
limitation at the first instance, on its merits was not justified – In
that view, order on the application filed under s.14 and s.3 of the
Limitation Act by the District Judge, Jodhpur was not sustainable –
Consequently, the proceedings in Arbitration Application restored
to the file of the District Judge, Jodhpur – Parties to appear before
the said Court on 15.10.2019 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
Or.7 r.10 and 10A – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.  A perusal of Order 7 Rule 10A indicate that the
re-presentation of the petition in the Court which is indicated in
the order for return cannot be considered as a fresh filing in all
circumstances when, it is returned to the plaintiff for such re-
presentation. In the instant case, though the appellant had not
filed the application indicating the Court to which the petition
would be re-presented and did not seek for fixing the date of
hearing, the Court at Jaipur while ordering return of the petition
after consideration of the application of the respondent under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had indicated the Court to which it was to
be presented and the date for appearance on 02.04.2008 for that
purpose.  Hence, it is not as if the proceeding came to an abrupt
end when the petition was returned so as to consider the next
filing as a fresh petition.  In that circumstance when the time had
been granted and date was fixed by the District Judge at Jaipur
and if for any reason the re-presentation was not possible on that
date, the course open to the appellant was to file an application
under Section 148 of CPC before the Court at Jaipur which
ordered for return and fixed the time for presentation in the Court
at Jodhpur, seeking extension of time granted earlier. However,
since the same was not resorted to by the appellant and the
petition was re-presented before the District Court at Jodhpur
with a delay of about 8 days from the date fixed 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.