Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: March 24, 2014 CS(OS) No.2157/2012 & I.A. No.12979/2012 M/S MS SHOES EAST LTD Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Pavan Sachdeva, AR versus TUSHAR BEDI & ORS Through ..... Defendants Defendants 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 prayer to pass a judgment in terms of the Award dated 28 th May, 2012 and decree the suit for Rs.95,62,019/- with future interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization of payment from the defendants, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application being I.A. No.12979/2012 under Section 28 of the Act seeking extension of time of arbitration proceedings from 20th August, 2007 till 28th May, 2012, i.e. the date on which the Award was made by the learned Arbitrator.
3. Despite service, the defendants did not appear. By order dated 2nd July, 2013 passed by this Court, the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 28 of the Act was allowed and disposed of. As far as the main suit is concerned, by the same order, the Award dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the learned Arbitrator was made a rule of the Court by passing a decree for the sum of awarded amount along with interest and taxed cost.
4. However, on the review petition filed by the plaintiff itself, the judgment dated 2nd July, 2013 was recalled on 2nd August, 2013 in view of defect in the service of the defendants. As per the order, the defendants were served through publication on 4th September, 2013 and also by way of affixation. However, the defendants did not appear. Hence, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13th January, 2014.
5. 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:(i) Order dated 7th 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.”
(ii) Order dated 7th 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.”
(iii) Order dated 7th 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.”
(iv) Order dated 7th 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.”
(v) Order dated 7th 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”.
6. 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.12979/2012 is allowed. The time for passing of the award stand extended as prayed in the application. The same is disposed of accordingly.
7. 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 defendants were part of the 267 underwriters. According to the plaintiff, the liability devolved on the defendants as the issue remained under subscribed. Since underwriters, including the defendants, failed to fulfill their obligations, a request was made to Delhi Stock Exchange on 2nd 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 Arbitrator on 14th March, 2007. The defendants 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 defendants as per record available before the learned sole Arbitrator.
8. As mentioned earlier, the award was passed by the learned Arbitrator on 28th May, 2012. No objections have been filed as yet against the award. Despite of service, the defendants failed to appear. The prescribed period for filing the objections has already expired as the defendants 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.
9. Accordingly, as prayed, the Award is made a rule of the Court. A decree is passed in the sum of Rs.95,62,019/- along with future interest @ 18% per annum, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff is also entitled for costs.
10. Decree be prepared accordingly in terms as indicated in the Award. (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE MARCH24 2014