Delhi High Court Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Amtek Geophysical Pvt. Ltd. on 14 October, 2004 Equivalent citations: 115(2004)DLT624 JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The parties have been litigating with each other with ferocity for several years. Observations were made by this Court to the effect that the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) had adopted dilatory tactics in the Claims raised by Amtek Geophysical Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) which are the subject matter of arbitration proceedings. One of the contentions that had arisen was whether the Arbitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would govern the arbitral proceedings. In SLP No.5211/2002 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following Order while disposing of the Petition on 19.4.2002: By consent of parties, the order of the High Court is modified as follows: The arbitration proceedings will go on under the provisions of the new Arbitration Act. However, any party aggrieved by the Award to be passed by the Arbitrator will be at liberty to challenge the same either under the old or the new Act and, if any objection is raised by any of the opposing parties as to the applicability of the old or the new Act, the same shall be decided by the court concerned independently without being influenced by the impugned order in this special leave petition. With this modification, the SLP is disposed of. 2. The contentions that have been raised before me have been articulated by Mr. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as follows: 1. For the purpose of limitation what is relevant is the institution of proceedings and not filing of pleadings. 2. In some cases like a suit under CPC, institution of proceedings arises through the filing of pleadings. 3. However, under the Arbitration Act, the institution of proceedings for the purpose of limitation is through giving of notice of dispute. See Sections 43(2) and Section 21. 4. Any delay would only be for condoning the delay in filing pleadings as directed and there is no bar under Section 3 of the Act that such delay should not be considered. This is in the context of the decision dated 17.8.2004 of the learned Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the Counter Claim filed by the Petitioner for the reason that it could not be entertained on the date on which it was filed. The application seeking condensation of delay was dismissed. 3. The annals of the litigation, in brief, is that the Petitioner had, in 1986, invited Tenders for Acquisition of 2D Seismic Data in India. After detailed discussions and negotiations Works were awarded on 17.10.1988 to the Respondent for Cambay Basin (Gujarat) and Assam/Nagaland region; and for the Cauvery Basin and Krishna Gadavary Basin on two other parties. The Contract was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 19.10.1989. It is the case of the Petitioner that even after the expiry of the stipulated period of nine months for mobilisation of equipment and crew, it gave as many as ten extensions to the Respondent. The Petitioner further asserts that almost no work was carried out by the Respondent in the Cambay area. On 28.12.1993 several notices were issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent for resumption of work. Eventually on 31.12.1993 the Petitioner invoked a Bank Guarantee furnished by the Respondent. This led to the filing of a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the Respondent being the springboard for the litigation which had reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of by its Order dated 19.4.2002. On 23.4.1997 the Petitioner appointed Justice Rajinder Sachar, Retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court as its Arbitrator. By a communication dated 9.11.1996 the Respondent appointed Late Shri R. V. Reddy as their Arbitrator. In December 1997 Justice K. Amareswari (Retired) was appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator by these two Arbitrators. On 22.11.2002 Shri R.V. Reddy died and consequently Dr. Avtar Singh was appointed in his place in December, 2002. It has been stated in the Petition that between December, 2002 and July, 2003 the Petitioner made considerable efforts to locate the records pertaining to the Counter Claim. 4. Mr. Sundaram has submitted that the request for submission of disputes to arbitration was made by the Respondent on October 28, 1996, despite the execution of the Deed of Settlement dated 8.6.1995, which the Petitioner has affirmed in its oral as well as written arguments. The Respondent proffered its Statement of Claim before the Arbitral Tribunal on 19.1.1998. Thereafter the Petitioner filed its Preliminary Objection dated 26.3.1998. It appears that the Arbitral Tribunal had deferred the consideration and decision on these Objections. On 30.5.1998 the Petitioner filed its defense Statement containing the f