08 September 2021 | Waaree Energies Limited v. Sahasradhara Energy (P) Ltd. | OSA No. 50, 51 and 54 of 2021 | Sanjib Banerjee CJ and PD Audikesavalu J | High Court of Madras | 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5086

A set-aside petition was presented with deficient court fees (one thousand instead of one lakhs) in June outside the three months but within 30 days grace period set out under Section 34 (3) ACA. The court’s registry returned the application. The petition was represented with proper court fees in August.

The set-aside court dismissed the petition for delay. It said that the petition “is clearly not proper presentation and does not arrest limitation period prescribed under Sub Section (3) of Section 34” of the ACA.

In an appeal under Section 37 ACA, the court upheld the dismissal. It said that in the light of the appellant’s conduct and its failure to protect its interest, the order impugned could not be flawed. When a right is conferred and hedged with certain conditions, the entire package must be adhered to. It will not do for a party to avail the right without complying with the condition as the appellant had attempted to do.

Read the decision here.