TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has led the petitioner to file the present proceedings. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner and the respondents entered into two share purchase agreements dated 04.11.2006. As per those agreements, the respondent Nos.1 to 7 sold their shareholding in the petitioner Company in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 14. In the said agreements an arbitration clause was inserted. On disputes arising between the parties, the petitioner on 27.05.2009 issued a notice and invoked the arbitration clause. The petitioner nominated its arbitrator and called upon the respondents to name their nominee. Since there was no response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2015 only in the second week of August, 2015. In accordance with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963'), the period of limitation prescribed was three years from the date the right to apply accrued. Since the right to apply accrued to the petitioner when it got notice of the email sent by the sole arbitrator in the second week of August, 2015, the petition filed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1996 on 01.08.2018 was prior to expiry of the period of three years. The said petition therefore ought to have been entertained on merits. In the alternate, it was submitted that on recusal of the sole arbitrator, the substitute arbitrator in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1996 was required to be appointed in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient cause made out by the petitioner for condoning the delay. Considering the fact that the petitioner was diligently pursuing the proceedings, the delay ought to have been condoned so as to enable the parties to have their disputes resolved through arbitration. Reference in this regard was made to the decision of this Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited 2021 INSC 194. It was thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the delay if any in filing the petition under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1996 be condoned. 4. Per contra Mr. Vikas Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents opposed the appeal. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in SAP India Private Limited vs. Cox & Kings Limited 2019:BHC-0S:9221. It was urged that the ratio of the decision in Bumihiway (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the case. It was also urged that though the petitioner filed the petition under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1996 on 01.08.2018, it was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. Such application was subsequently filed only on 22.09.2018. As a result, the period of delay ought to be reckoned till that date. In absence of any sufficient cause whatsoever there was no reason for exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, Borse Brothers Eng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... email by the sole arbitrator and its receipt by the parties is not disputed. In the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner it has been stated in clear terms that though the sole arbitrator had communicated the order dated 27.07.2015 through email, the petitioner's counsel could access the email account only in the second week of August, 2015 due to some technical issues. At the same time, the petitioner's counsel informed the petitioner accordingly. After considering the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay, the High Court found that no sufficient cause for the delay as occasioned had been furnished by the petitioner. An attempt to get over the aspect of delay was sought to be made by raising a p....