Delhi High Court – Orders
Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd & Ors vs Intec Capital Limited on 17 July, 2025
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 106/2023, CM APPL. 22985/2023, CM APPL.
26634/2023
KEW PRECISION PARTS PVT. LTD & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. PS Bindra, Mr Madhu Sudan, Mr
Ilam Paridi, Mr. Ankit Kakkar, Mr
Tejasvi Chaudhry, Ms Shreya Mehra
Mr Fazal Haroon, Advs.
versus
INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pranav Goyal, Ms. Pooja
Chaudhary, Ms. Mreeganka Goyal &
Mr. Vishant Singh, Adv(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
ORDER
% 17.07.2025
1. On 25.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:
“1. We take note of the final conclusion which came to
be recorded by the Commercial Judge insofar as the
issue of service of the Award is concerned:-
“13. As per the arbitral record, copy of the award
was sent to petitioner no. 2 vide speed post no.
EDO29222940IN dated 17.05.2016. The tracking
report is at page 19 of the arbitral record. It
shows that the postal article was delivered on
19.05.2016. There is presumption of service
against the petitioner no. 2 under Section 3 of theFAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
Act and it has not been rebutted by him.
14. Copy of the award was sent to petitioner no. 3
vide speed post no. EDO29222834IN dated
17.05.2016. The tracking report is at page 20 of
the arbitral record. It shows that the postal article
was delivered on 19.05.2016. There is
presumption of service against the petitioner no. 2
under Section 3 of the Act and it has not been
rebutted by her.
15. Copy of the award was sent to petitioner no. 4
vide speed post no. EDO29222825IN dated
17.05.2016. The tracking report is at page 18 of
the arbitral record. It shows that the postal article
was delivered on 20.05.2016. There is
presumption of service against the petitioner no. 2
under Section 3 of the Act and it has not been
rebutted by him.
16. The dates of delivery of award to petitioners
no. 2 to 4 also make it clear that the present
petition is barred by limitation. The limitation
expired in the year 2016 and the present petition
has been filed on 30.05.2022. Since, the petition is
barred by limitation, there is no need to go into
the merit of the grounds taken in the petition. The
petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Cost
of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners.
Cost be paid by them to the respondent within
thirty days from the date of this order. File be
consigned to Record Room.”
2. Presently, the appellant has failed to place any
material which may cast a doubt on the aforenoted
findings and conclusions on fact that have come to be
recorded.
FAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
3. We, however, could not proceed further today since
learned counsel for the appellant was stated to be on
his feet before another Court.
4. Let this appeal be called again on 25.03.2025.”
2. Pursuant to the said Order, no further material has been placed in
Court to show that the conclusion arrived at by the Commercial Court is
faulty. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the Petition
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was within
the time stipulated as mentioned in the said provision. Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act reads as under:
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.–
(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may
be made only by an application for setting aside such
award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-
section (3).
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court
only if–
(a) the party making the application establishes
on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal
that]–
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid
under the law to which the parties have
subjected it or, failing any indication
thereon, under the law for the time being in
force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not
FAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
given proper notice of the appointment of an
arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or
was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute
not contemplated by or not falling within the
terms of the submission to arbitration, or it
contains decisions on matters beyond the
scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters
submitted to arbitration can be separated
from those not so submitted, only that part of
the arbitral award which contains decisions
on matters not submitted to arbitration may
be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or
the arbitral procedure was not in accordance
with the agreement of the parties, unless
such agreement was in conflict with a
provision of this Part from which the parties
cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement,
was not in accordance with this Part; or
(b) the Court finds that–
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not
capable of settlement by arbitration under
the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the
public policy of India.
Explanation 1.–For the avoidance of any doubt,
it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the
public policy of India, only if,–
(i) the making of the award was induced or
FAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
affected by fraud or corruption or was in
violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the
fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic
notions of morality or justice. Explanation
2.–For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to
whether there is a contravention with the
fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail
a review on the merits of the dispute.]
(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations
other than international commercial arbitrations,
may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court
finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award: Provided that
an award shall not be set aside merely on the
ground of an erroneous application of the law or
by reappreciation of evidence.]
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made
after three months have elapsed from the date on which
the party making that application had received the
arbitral award or, if a request had been made under
section 33, from the date on which that request had
been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant
was prevented by sufficient cause from making the
application within the said period of three months it
may entertain the application within a further period of
thirty days, but not thereafter.
(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1),
the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is soFAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a
period of time determined by it in order to give the
arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral
proceedings or to take such other action as in the
opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds
for setting aside the arbitral award.
(5) An application under this section shall be filed by a
party only after issuing a prior notice to the other
party and such application shall be accompanied by an
affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with
the said requirement.
(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.]”
3. The Apex Court in Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India,
(2019) 2 SCC 455, has held as under:-
“18. A plain reading of sub-section (3) along with the
proviso to Section 34 of the 1996 Act, shows that the
application for setting aside the award on the grounds
mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 34 could be
made within three months and the period can only be
extended for a further period of thirty days on showing
sufficient cause and not thereafter. The use of the
words “but not thereafter” in the proviso makes it
clear that the extension cannot be beyond thirty days.
Even if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is
given to the respondent, there will still be a delay of
131 days in filing the application. That is beyond the
strict timelines prescribed in sub-section (3) read
along with the proviso to Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
The delay of 131 days cannot be condoned. To do so,
as the High Court did, is to breach a clear statutory
mandate.”
FAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
4. In view of the above, the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act is clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, the present Appeal is
rejected.
5. The Appeal is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.
6. It is made clear that the Appellant is permitted to take recourse to the
remedies in accordance with law.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
JULY 17, 2025
Rahul
FAO (COMM) 106/2023 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:33:35
[ad_1]
Source link