Introduction:
In legal proceedings, referencing an incorrect provision can often raise concerns about the validity of the application. However, the law ensures that such errors should not prevent the court from addressing the merits of the case, particularly when it has the power to grant the requested relief. It is a well-established principle that an application cannot be invalidated solely due to the incorrect mention of a provision, as long as the court has the authority to pass the intended order. This principle was reinforced by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Mangal Chand and Ors. vs. LAC NHAI and Ors., Where the petitioner sought an extension of time, despite citing an incorrect provision under Section 151 of the CPC.
Facts:
The applicant filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking an extension of time to comply with a court order passed in late 2023. The order granted an extension of six months for an arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings related to a specific case. The applicant’s legal counsel informed the arbitrator’s counsel about the court’s decision but failed to download and present the order to the arbitrator. Due to this lapse, the arbitrator could not proceed with the case, and the time granted by the court expired without further action.
View of the High Court:
The court reviewed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC, seeking an extension of time to comply with a prior court order. The petitioner explained that although their counsel had informed the arbitrator’s counsel about the order, the failure to download and present the order to the arbitrator led to the delay. The petitioner argued that they should not be penalized for the counsel’s oversight and requested an extension to resolve the matter.
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act already provided a mechanism for extending time in arbitration matters. They contended that the petitioner’s failure to appear before the arbitrator lacked justification, and extending the time would cause financial implications for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), due to interest payments.
Upon examining the case, the court acknowledged that Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically addressed time extensions in arbitration. It noted that the application under Section 151 of the CPC was unnecessary, as the arbitration law already provided for this. However, the court did not dismiss the application due to the incorrect reference to Section 151 CPC, recognizing that such a mistake did not invalidate the request for an extension. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be penalized for their counsel’s failure to submit the order to the arbitrator. It allowed the extension of time, prioritizing the legal framework over procedural oversight.
*The content of this article is intended to provide general information. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting based on the information written above without first seeking legal advice from a qualified law practitioner.
Author: Hiteashi Rajan Desai, Associate at R&D Law Chambers LLP
* R & D Law Chambers is a firm that provides legal advisory and international and domestic tax advisory services. To know more visit https://rdlawchambers.com/.