OMAXE LTD vs DR. MADHU GUPTA SINCE DECEASED TRHOUGH LR

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 01st December, 2025 + FAO (COMM) 314/2025 & CM APPL. 69363/2025 & 69365/2025 M/S OMAXE LIMITED 7, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019. .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mukti Bodh & Ms. Neha Chaturvedi, Advs. Versus DR. MADHU GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED) TRHOUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE MR. NITINIJYA CHAUDHARY 4844/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002. .....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Bahl & Mr.Rahul Mourya, Advs. with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, AR of the respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL Signature Not Verified Signed By:ALKA BOBAL FAO (COMM) 314/2025 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:02.12.2025 15:32:54 JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. After the award was suffered by the appellant which was in two phases, i.e. 22nd April 2019 and additional award dated 21st November 2019, proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were initiated, which were rejected vide impugned judgment and order dated 30th July 2025, as were barred by limitation. 2. Amongst others, a point of contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the additional award was dated 21st November 2019, certified copy of which was received on 2nd December 2019. The appellant reckoned the period of limitation from 2nd December 2019 instead of 21st November 2019 i.e. the date on which the additional award was pronounced; as such, there was a minor delay of 11 days which the Court in dealing with the prayer under Section 34 of the Act could have looked into, as the same seems to be covered by the proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 34 of the