DELHI HIGH COURT DENIED BENEFITS OF SECTION 14 OF LIMITATION ACT CITING LACK OF DILIGENT PROSECUTION; PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE A&C ACT DISMISSED TWICE FOR NON-PROSECUTION

The Delhi High Court in the case U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd observed and has stated that he application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to a petitioner who, through lack of diligence, allowed its section 34 petition moved under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which is to be dismissed twice for nonprosecution.

The bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shadkher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the case observed and has held that the that a petition was dismissed in default on two occasions, shows complete lack of due diligence in its prosecution.

The court in the case held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which exempt a period covered by litigious activity and protects a litigant against the bar of limitation when a proceeding is dismissed on account of a technical defect instead of being decided on merits, it would not be extended to a party that fails to diligently pursue a matter.

Facts of the Case: The dispute are destemmed from a contract for the execution of Power House Electrical equipment at District Saharanpur which is awarded to the Respondent by the Appellant through a contract dated September 28, 1988.