M/S. Rish Prabhat Vs. Delhi Development Authority

M/S. Rish Prabhat vs Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 02, 1994

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/679707

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/679707
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: J.K. Mehra, J.
Decided On: Feb 02, 1994
Case Number: I.A. No. 7687 of 1993 and Suit No. 3914 of 1992
Subject: Limitation;Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 13: [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph,JJ] Custody of child - Welfare of child vis--vis comity of Courts - The minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to India by her mother. The minor girl was a citizen of U.K. being born in U.K. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in U.K. and had acquired statu...

Key legal issue: Limitation;Arbitration
Acts & sections: Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. Rish Prabhat

Advocate C. Somasekharan with; S.K. Chandwani, Advs

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Advocate V.K. Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30
Reported In: AIR1995Delhi9

Excerpt

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........26th april. 1993 when according to the applicants the time ran out. no explanationn even of movement of file is available on record between 19th july, 1993 and 16th august, 1993. but the statements contained in the application are believed by the facts on record.3. on checking up the records, i find that the respondent had been served with notice of filing the award on 3rd march, 1993 and not on 27th march, 1993 as is alleged. even inspection of the record was taken by the law officer of the respondent on 9th march, 1993. thereforee, 30 days time has to be computed from 3rd march, 1993 and not from 27th march, 1993. thereforee, the last date for filing the objections was 2nd april, 1993 and not 26th april, 1993 as has been alleged in the application under consideration. thus the applicant must explain the delay after 2nd april and not 26th april, 1993. no explanationn whatsoever is available for the delay between 2nd april and 26th april, 1993. no explanationn is required about the time taken up to 2nd april, 1993 when the time for filing the objections ran out. i find from the application that on 30th march, 1993, the file was forwarded to the legal assistant, whocannot be said to be unaware of the limitation for filing the objections. thereafter the file went to deputy chief legal adviser-and the chief legal adviser on 3rd may, 1993 and 4th may, 1993 respectively who also cannot be said to be unaware of the limitation for filing the objections. still no immediate action was taken.4. to obtain extension of time by invoking the provisions of s.5 of the limitation act, the party seeking extension has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not filing the objections within the prescribed time. from the facts stated above lam not satisfied that the respondent/applicant has established that it has sufficient cause for not filing the objections within time. in fact, a reading of the allegations in the application tells a tale of neglect, lethargy and.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act whereby the respondents have sought condensation of delay in filing objections to the award of the sole arbitrator, Shri R. C. Malhotra dated 29-9-1992. The objection petition is registered as I.A. No. 7764/93.

2. I have heard both the parties and have also been taken through the record of this case by both the counsel. In application, it isalleged that the respondents were served with the notice of the filing of the award on 27th March, 1993. The objections to the award were filed on 25th August, 1993 i.e. about four months of the service of notice. The applicant-objector has set out in para 2 of the application various dales when the file of this case was traveling from one desk to the other. Such consideration of file appears to have been taken up soon after the award even before the service of notice, which means that respondents has had four months time to consider their stand on the award. Finally the file was brought on 19th July, 1993 by the J. F.. to counsel who wanted the Executive Engineer concerned to discuss the matter. Accordingly the file was brought back to the counsel only on 16th August, 1993 where after the objections were prepared and filed on 25th August, 1993. Even assuming the dates mentioned in para 2 to be correct, I am not satisfied that the respondent has acted with dispatch and has been able to explain the delay from 26th April. 1993 when according to the applicants the time ran out. No Explanationn even of movement of file is available on record between 19th July, 1993 and 16th August, 1993. But the statements contained in the application are believed by the facts on record.

3. On checking up the records, I find that the respondent had been served with notice of filing the award on 3rd March, 1993 and not on 27th March, 1993 as is alleged. Even inspection of the record was taken by the Law Officer of the respondent on 9th March, 1993. thereforee, 30 days time has to be computed from 3rd March, 1993 and not from 27th March, 1993. thereforee, the last date for filing the objections was 2nd April, 1993 and not 26th April, 1993 as has been alleged in the application under consideration. Thus the applicant must explain the delay after 2nd April and not 26th April, 1993. No Explanationn whatsoever is available for the delay between 2nd April and 26th April, 1993. No Explanationn is required about the time taken up to 2nd April, 1993 when the time for filing the objections ran out. I find from the application that on 30th March, 1993, the file was forwarded to the Legal Assistant, whocannot be said to be unaware of the limitation for filing the objections. Thereafter the file went to Deputy Chief Legal Adviser-and the Chief Legal Adviser on 3rd May, 1993 and 4th May, 1993 respectively who also cannot be said to be unaware of the limitation for filing the objections. Still no immediate action was taken.

4. To obtain extension of time by invoking the provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act, the party seeking extension has to satisfy the Court that he had Sufficient cause for not filing the objections within the prescribed time. From the facts stated above Lam not satisfied that the respondent/applicant has established that it has sufficient cause for not filing the objections within time. In fact, a reading of the allegations in the application tells a tale of neglect, lethargy and scant regard for complying with the provisions of law.

5. Before concluding, I must express displeasure and disapproval in strongest terms the incorrect statement of facts in the application regarding the date of service of notice. The possibility of Court falling into error if the record had not been checked regarding the date of service of notice of filing the award, could not be ruled out. No Explanationn has been offered for such misstatement of facts. Such wrong statement of facts for which no Explanationn is offered or forthcoming on the record by itself also inter alias disentitles the applicant-respondent to the relief sought in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. In the light of the above discussion this application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

LA. 7764/93

7. The objections of the respondents are dismissed as being time-barred.

Suit No. 3914/92

8. Objections to the award have alreadybeen dismissed as time-barred. In the circumstances, the award dated 29-9-1992 made by Shri R. C. Malhotra, the Arbitrator, is made a rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn up. The award shall form a part of the decree.The decree-holder shall also be entitled to future interest from the date of the decree till realisation at the same rate which has been awarded by the arbitrator.

9. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1994 Same Parties M/S. Rish Prabhat vs Delhi Development Authority Same Subject Limitation;Arbitration Same Judge J.K. Mehra, J. Acts & Sections Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Se...

Limitation;Arbitration