Hon'ble Delhi High Court reiterated that Section 151 CPC can only be invoked where no other remedy exists, and its use is subject to limitations to prevent abuse of the process: Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. v. Union of India

 

Summary of the judgment in O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 1/2020, Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. v. Union of India, delivered by the Delhi High Court on 17 January 2023:

---

🧾 Case Background:

• The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator and appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

• The case was dismissed on 26.09.2022 due to non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel and because an award had already been announced (on 24.07.2020), followed by a No Claim Certificate and receipt of FDR by the claimant.

---

⚖️ Application for Recall:

• The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC (inherent powers) for recalling the dismissal order dated 26.09.2022, stating:

  • The counsel was engaged in arguments before another Bench.

  • The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award despite a High Court order (09.01.2020) requiring the arbitral record to be sent to court, which was allegedly disobeyed.

---

🔍 Court’s Analysis & Legal Reasoning:

1. Scope of Section 151 CPC:

The Court reiterated that Section 151 CPC can only be invoked where no other remedy exists, and its use is subject to limitations to prevent abuse of the process.

2. Key Precedents Referred:

• Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218:

  • Inherent powers are complementary to the CPC but cannot conflict with express provisions.

• Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396:

  • Recall is permissible in case of:

    • Fraud,

    • Misleading the court,

    • Mistake by court,

    • Lack of jurisdiction,

    • Party not being served or being dead and unrepresented.

• Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan (2013) 11 SCC 296:

  • Section 151 is procedural, not a substantive right.

  • Cannot override other CPC provisions or be used to re-open settled matters.

• My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1063:

  • Courts cannot use Section 151 to substitute statutory remedies (like appeal, review, etc.).

3. Finding on the Present Case:

• The order dated 26.09.2022 was passed on merits, based on the fact that:

  • Arbitration award was already announced.

  • A No Claim Certificate was issued.

  • FDR was received, implying satisfaction of the award.

• No exceptional grounds for recall (fraud, non-service, lack of jurisdiction, etc.) were made out.

• The petitioner was careless, and settled matters should not be unsettled for such lapses.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Final Ruling:

• The recall application was dismissed.

• The Court emphasized that litigants must be diligent, and inherent powers cannot be used to revive petitions that are already dismissed on merits, unless strict conditions are met.

---

📌 Key Takeaways / Legal Insights:

1. Section 151 CPC is not a substitute for appeal/review and applies only when no alternate remedy exists.

2. Once an order is passed on merits, recall is rarely permissible—only on narrow, exceptional grounds.

3. Diligence of counsel and compliance with judicial directions are critical in arbitration-related matters.

4. Courts are inclined to protect finality of judgments and discourage delayed attempts to reopen cases.