1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. O. O. C. J. O. C. J. O. C. J. NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.940 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO.940 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO.940 OF 2009 IN IN IN ARBITRATION ARBITRATION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.69 OF 2009 PETITION (L) NO.69 OF 2009 PETITION (L) NO.69 OF 2009 M/s. MFD Associate Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner vs. M/s. Angel Broking Limited & Ors. Respondents Mr.Abhishek Khare i/by M/s. Khare Legal Chambers for the Petitioner. Mr.Deepak Dhane for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 2nd May,2009 P.C. The Petitioner- Appellant has taken out this Notice of Motion to condone the delay in filing the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.69 of 2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"). 2. The award was passed on 27th March, 2008. The copy was received by the Petitioner on 02/04/2008. The Petitioner, submits that as basic agreement and transaction took place at Delhi, though the arbitral tribunal is of Bombay Stock Exchange, and the arbitral 2 award was passed at Mumbai. Therefore, preferred application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi. 3. On 12/11/2008 in pursuance to the objections raised and after hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the present Petition with liberty as prayed. The Petitioner got certified copy of the order on 2nd December, 2008. Thereafter, filed the present Petition before this Court on 23rd January, 2009. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed this Notice of Motion. 4. Considering the above facts and the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Engineering Engineering Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Department and Ors., Department and Ors., Department and Ors., reported in (2008) 7, (2008) 7, (2008) 7, S.C.C. S.C.C. S.C.C. 169 169 169 as it is made clear that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to such situation and the proceedings. In the present case as noted, admittedly the Petition was moved in the Delhi High Court and pursuance to the order dated 12/11/2008, the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Petition with liberty. 3 5. The filing of present Petition on 23/01/2009, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the exclusion as available, I am of the view that in the present Petition a case is made out to condone the delay. 6. In view of this, the notice of motion No.940 of 2009 is allowed. However, this is subject to costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Respondents within two weeks. No costs. 7. Put up the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 69 of 2009 for admission in the 2nd week of June, 2009. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]