BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SOUTH EAST SAKET DISTRICT COURT

COMMERCIAL COURT
O.M.P. COMM 35 OF 2022
(Appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)
IN THE MATTER OF :
Steel Authority of India Limited …..Petitioner
Versus
KL Concast Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULAR PAGE NO.
1. Brief written synopsis for and on behalf of the
Petitioner.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

Date: Ashish Rana/Anurag Kr. Singh/

Debasmita Goswami
 Place: (Advocates)
D/690/2005
C-41, 1st Floor
Sector-2 Noida
Mob:9971882200
Email: aor.ashishrana@gmail.com

BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SOUTH EAST SAKET DISTRICT COURT
COMMERCIAL COURT
O.M.P. COMM 35 OF 2022
(Appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)
IN THE MATTER OF :
Steel Authority of India Limited …..Petitioner
Versus
KL Concast Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent

BRIEF SYNOPSIS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN 21.03.2022 – 02.07.2022:

1. That on 21.03.2022, the Petitioner received the copy of the Impugned Award dated
04.03.2022 through email. The copy of the email dated 21.03.2022 is marked and
annexed as Annexure P-1.
2. That on 16.06.2022 the first filing was done before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The copy of the filing receipt has been marked and annexed as Annexure P-2.
3. That on 19.06.2022 the 90 days time period as granted under Section 34(3) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 expired.
4. That on 02.07.2022 the objections were received from the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court’s Registry. The Copy of the objections received from the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court’s registry is marked and annexed as Annexure P -3.

DEVELPMENT BETWEEN 02.07.2022 – 16.07.2022:

5. That from 04.07.2022 – 08.07.2022 while perusing the objections received from the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s Registry, before re-filing the Petition before High Court
of Delhi, it was found that the amount involved in the matter is less than Rs. 2 Crores.
Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner made necessary changes in the Petition for
filing before this Hon’ble Court.
6. That thereafter on, 09.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel sent an email to its client for
providing certain documents necessary for filing before this Hon’ble Court. The Copy
of the email dated 09.07.2022 is marked and annexed as Annexure P-4.
7. That on 14.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel further sent an email to its client for
sending signed, stamped and notarized copy of the Condonation of Delay application
necessary for filing before this Hon’ble Court. The Copy of the email dated
14.07.2022 is marked and annexed as Annexure P -5.
8. That on 15.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel received the signed and scanned copies of
Condonation of delay Application along with the Affidavit. The copy of the email
dated 15.07.2022 is marked and annexed as Annexure P– 6.
9. That on 16.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel sent an email to the client for sending
signed, stamped and notarized copies of Applications necessary for filing before this
Hon’ble Court. The Copy of the email dated 16.07.2022 is marked and annexed as
Annexure P -7.
10. That on 16.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel received the signed and stamped copy of
the Applications. The copy of the email dated 16.07.2022 is marked and annexed as
Annexure P-8.
11. That on 16.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel served the copy of the Section 34 Petition
under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
The copy of the email dated 16.07.2022 is marked and annexed as Annexure P-9.
12. That on 16.07.2022 the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 was filed before this Hon’ble Court.

DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN 18.07.2022 – 21.07.2022

13. That on 18.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel received an email from the Registry stating
to cure notified defects through e- filing. The copy of the email dated 18.07.2022 is
marked and annexed as Annexure Annexure P-10.
 14. That on 18.07.2022 the Petitioner Counsel received an email from the Registry stating
that E-Filing has been submitted and is pending for initial approval. The copy of the
email dated 18.07.2022 is marked an annexed as Annexure P-11.
15. That on 19.07.2022 the extended time period of additional 30 days granted under
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had expired.
16. That on 20.07.2022, the filing was approved by the Registry. Copy of the email dated
20.07.2022 is marked and annexed as Annexure P-12.
17. That on 21.07.2022, the first hearing was held before this Hon’ble Court.

BRIEF SUBMISSIONS:

I. SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 IS APPLICABLE TO

THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION
AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

18. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/1372/2019 that
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to the proceedings under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the petition under Section
34 was filed within time. (Please see paras 10,11,13,14 of the said judgment). The
copy of the judgment Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tejparas Associates &
Exports Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/1372/2019 has been marked and annexed as Annexure
P-13.

II. THE DOCTRINE OF “EVERY DAY DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED”

HAS TO BE APPLIED IN A PRAGMATIC MANNER, AND A PEDANTIC
APPROACH SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED.
19. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land
acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 that the doctrine of “everyday
delay must be explained” has to be applied in a rational, common-sensical and
pragmatic manner, and a pedantic approach should not be adopted. (Please see paras
3,4 of the said judgment). The copy of the judgment Collector, Land acquisition,
Anantnag and Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 has been marked and annexed as
Annexure P – 14.
 PETITIONER

THROUGH

Date: Ashish Rana/Anurag Kr. Singh/

Debasmita Goswami
Place:
(Advocates)
D/690/2005
C-41, 1st Floor
Sector-2 Noida
Mob:9971882200
Email: aor.ashishrana@gmail.com