Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1978 (HP)

NTPC Limited v. Arien New Delhi Private Limited

2015-12-28

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge(Oral) In this application a prayer has been made for condonation of delay as occurred in re-filing the objections under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed against the impugned award. 2. True it is that the objections raised by the Registry in the main petition were removed and the same re-filed after a period over one year i.e. 16.10.2014, however with a note stating therein the reasons as to how the delay in re-filing main petition after removal of objections occurred. The Registry taking into consideration the note of learned counsel has received the main petition and after its registration listed in the Court for orders. The respondent/non-applicant after service has filed an application OMP No. 85 of 2015 with a prayer to dismiss the objections being refiled after a period over one year and without any application seeking condonation of the delay as occurred. It is in reply to this application and also the present application filed separately, the applicant-petitioner has elaborated the reasons leading to re-filing of the main petition after removal of objections after a period over one year. 3. The application has been contested. In reply thereto filed on behalf of the respondent/non-applicant,it is averred that in view of part-I Chapter-II Rule 3 of the H.P. High Court(Original side) Rules, 1997, the application for condonation of delay as occurred in re-filing the petition/ suit or an appeal is required to be made to the Registrar. True it is that the petitioner-applicant has not moved an application to the Registrar, however, the note on the scrutiny sheet seems to have been treated as an application and the delay as occurred in re-filing the main petition condoned by the Registrar while ordering its registration. These are rules of procedure and should be interpreted liberally to impart justice and not to thwart it. Therefore, the note of learned counsel has rightly been appreciated by the Registry while registering the main petition on condonation of delay as occurred in refiling the same. The main petition could have not been sought to be dismissed on the ground of delay as occurred in re-filing the same. This application is, therefore, allowed. Consequently, the main petition is to be heard and disposed of on merits. The application is accordingly disposed of.