Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF
SHRI SANJAY KHANAGWAL
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLND01-001811-2026
OMP (COMM.) 33/2026
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Limited
N-36, Bombay Life Building,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001
Also at :
Technical Centre Building,
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052
E-mail – eemaintenance2023@gmail.com
cpmcd.sharma@gmail.com
Firdousewani.lawz@gmail.com
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services (P) Ltd
Office at 96, Bhagat Singh Market,
Gole Market, New Delhi-110001
E-mail : rkjainco2010@yahoo.in
…Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This order shall dispose of the petition U/s 34 of Arbitration
& Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner.
2. The present is an application U/s 34 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act for setting aside the arbitral Award dated
OMP (Comm) No.33/2026 DSIIDC Vs. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
31.05.2025. The issue involved herein is about the limitation in
filing the Award, which is objected to by Ld. Counsel for the
respondent.
3. The present petition U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 was filed by the petitioner against the Award dated
31.05.2025. Admittedly, the petitioner received the Award on
31.05.2025 itself. There is an application U/s 5 of Limitation Act
seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition.
4. It is submitted that petitioner is a Government body,
entrusted with public infrastructure development and bound to
ensure that public funds are expended strictly in accordance with
contractual and statutory provisions. It is further submitted that
the petitioner awarded competitive public tender in favour of the
respondent for sweeping, cleaning, housekeeping and sanitation
services. The tender and the executed contract agreement
expressly excluded any provision for labour wage escalation
including complete deletion of Clause 10C of the CPWD general
conditions of the contract. The respondent with full knowledge
about the terms, voluntarily participated in the tender process,
submitted its financial bid after due diligence and accepted the
contractual allocation of risk relating to labour wage variation.
No claim towards wage escalation was raised by the respondent.
After completion of the contract period, for the first time, the
respondent sought reimbursement of alleged increased labour
OMP (Comm) No.33/2026 DSIIDC Vs. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
wages, without producing any documentary proof of actual
payment or statutory compulsion which claim was rejected by the
petitioner being barred under the contract.
5. It is submitted that in the circumstances the impugned
Award suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error and non-
application of mind as despite the categorical defence that Clause
10C was consciously excluded and no evidence of increased
wages was produced, Ld. Arbitrator allowed the claim by
importing CPWD norms into the contract, thereby re-writing the
agreement between the parties and the Award fails to adjudicate
the core contractual defence, ignores binding contractual terms
and grant relief which were expressly excluded by the mutual
agreement.
6. The condonation is prayed on the ground that after
receiving the copy of Award on 31.05.2025, the petitioner being
the Government body, was required to place the matter before the
competent authority for consideration, approval and further cause
of action. During this crucial period, father of late Sh. H.S.
Sharma, concerned departmental officer had expired on
24.10.2025 therefore, delay was caused in filing the petition
which was beyond the control of the petitioner.
7. Admittedly, there is delay of about 262 days in filing the
present petition which was filed on 17.02.2026 after receiving of
the Award on 31.05.2025.
OMP (Comm) No.33/2026 DSIIDC Vs. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
8. Section 34(3) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act provides
as under :
“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
period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”
9. From this provision, it is clear that delay in filing the
petition U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act can be
condoned to three months and thereafter, after showing the
sufficient cause of delay, it can be extended to a further period of
30 days, but not thereafter. This shows that constitute leave no
discretion with the court to entertain an application filed beyond
120 days irrespective of the reasons advanced for the delay.
10. Hon’ble High Court in case titled Delhi Development
Authority Vs. Kunal Food Products Pvt Ltd,
MANU/DE/1747/2026, has observed as under :
“10. Reference in this regard may be had to a recent
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
FAO(OS) (COMM) 107/2025 titled as Union of India
v. M/S GR-GAWAR (J.V.) dated 30.10.2025,
wherein it was observed thus :
“23. Therefore, the examination under Section
34 of the Act of 1996 must necessarily encompass
two essential considerations. Firstly, whether the
application has been filed within the outer statutory
OMP (Comm) No.33/2026 DSIIDC Vs. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
limit of 120 days, as explicitly mandated under
Section 34(3). Secondly, whether any delay in filing
beyond the initial period of 90 days, but within the
permissible extension of 30 days, is accompanied by
sufficient cause and an adequate day-to-day
explanation demonstrating bona fide reasons. The
statutory scheme unequivocally prescribes that no
application under Section 34 can be entertained
beyond the absolute outer limit of 120 days from the
date of receipt of the award. It follows that any delay
within the permissible 30-day extension must be
accompanied by cogent, satisfactory, and meticulous
explanation, failing which the delay cannot be
condoned. Consequently, the statute leaves no
discretion to entertain a application filed beyond 120
days, irrespective of the reasons advanced for such
delay”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The Decision in M/S GR-GAWAR (J.V.) (Supra),
in turn followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular
Construction Co., MANU/SC/0613/2001 : 2001:
INSC: 487 : (2001) 8 SCC 470, wherein it was
observed thus:
“12. As far as the language of Section 34 of
the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are “but
not thereafter” used in the proviso to sub-section (3).
In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an
express exclusion within the meaning of Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar
the application of Section 5 of that Act. Parliament
did not need to go further. To hold that the court
could entertain an application to set aside the award
beyond the extended period under the proviso, would
render the phrase “but not thereafter” wholly otiose.
No principle of interpretation would justify such a
result.”
OMP (Comm) No.33/2026 DSIIDC Vs. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
11. In these circumstances, the present petition being
barred by limitation, is not maintainable. The same is accordingly
dismissed.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
(Sanjay Khanagwal)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
Patiala House Courts / 08.04.2026
OMP (Comm) No.33/2026 DSIIDC Vs. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --