Dr. Jain Video on Wheels Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking, inter-alia, following reliefs:-

"1. Order or direction for expediting the proceeding of Arbitration Case No.1255/2017 (113/19) "State of Uttarakhand through Director General Vs. Dr. Jain Video of Wheels" pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (Commercial) Dehradun, in a fixed time schedule which this Court deems fit and proper."

It appears that an application, for setting aside arbitration award, was filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act), on 14.11.2017. The instant petition has been filed with the averments therein that the application under Section 34 of the Act has yet not been decided, therefore, direction for expeditious disposal may be issued, keeping in view the provision of Sub Section 6 of Section 34 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the application filed under Section 34 of the Act has yet been decided even after filing of it in the year 2017, therefore, direction may be issued. Dates have been indicated, on which adjournment applications were filed by the respondent. On behalf of the State, learned counsel would submit that it may be expedited as per Section 34 Sub Section 6 of the Act.

Section 34 Sub Section 6 prescribes a time limit, within which endeavor should be made to decide an application. It reads as hereunder:-

"(6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party."

Perusal of the order reveals in the matter on 16.01.2018, 26. 04.2018, 17.05.2018, 21.08.2018, 01.10.2018, 15.10.2018 and 22.11.2018 respondent filed application for adjournment. It may be noted here that the application under Section 34 of the Act was filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing it. State had delayed in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act and further delayed disposal of if. Finally, on 30.03.2019 application for condonation of delay, was allowed and delay condoned. The petitioner also at one occasion on 13.07.2018 sought an adjournment and on 23.01.2019, once case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the respondent, which was subsequently recalled, on an application filed by the petitioner.

Speed is essence of the proceedings under the Act. There are special courts constituted under Commercial Court Act, 2015. In this case, the respondent has firstly delayed in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act and subsequently tried to further delay it at least on seven clear occasions, as stated hereinabove. Those adjournment applications were just allowed. Perhaps, it has not been the intention of the legislature while prescribing a time limit for disposal of such application, as given in Section 34 Sub Section 6 of the Act.

The Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law of International Commercial Arbitration as adopted in 1985 by the United Nations Commission of National Trade Law (UNCITRAL.). In the year 2016, this Act was further amended. Section 29-A prescribes time limit for arbitral award, section 29-B prescribes for fast track procedure. There have been other amendments, also incorporated. As stated hereinbefore, Section 34(6) of the Act also prescribes a time limit within which the application under Section 34 of the Act may be decided. In the instant case, the Court took almost two years to decide the delay condonation application.

This Court cannot fix a time limit now, within which the application under Section 34 of the Act may be decided by the court below. But, this Court would definitely like to remind the court below that statutory provision with regard to time limits in matters like instant one, are in fact, essence of the statute. This Court is confident that the court below would definitely now make endeavor to see that the proceedings end as expeditiously as possible.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.