MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 26.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 11.12.2025 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 193/2025, CM APPL. 74156/2025 (stay), CM APPL. 74157/2025 (Exp.), CM APPL. 74158/2025 (delay of 7 days in re-filing appeal) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gaganmeet Singh, Advocate. versus M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present Appeal, instituted under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, assails the Judgment dated 13.10.20252 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM) No. 375/2025, titled “Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Mafatlal Industries Limited.” 1 A&C Act 2 Impugned Judgement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO(OS) (COMM) 193/2025 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:12.12.2025 17:22:02 2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the Petition preferred under Section 34 of the A&C Act, holding the same to be hopelessly barred by limitation. 3. The principal question which arises for determination in the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the Appellant‟s Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act on the ground of limitation, in view of the absolute statutory bar contained in Section 34(3) and its proviso. ANALYSIS: 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and, with his able assistance, perused the Impugned Judgment, as well as other relevant materials. 5. At the outset, and before we proceed to exami