2021 Supreme(SC) 163

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, B.R. GAVAI, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented By Executive Engineer - Appellant
Versus
M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2021 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 665 of 2021) with Civil Appeal No. 999 of 2021 (@SLP (Civil) No. 15278 of 2020) and Civil Appeal No. 996-998 of 2021 (@SLP (Civil) No. 4872-4874 of 2021) Diary No. 18079 of 2020
Decided on : 19-03-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be seen in context of object of speedy resolution of disputes. Section 5 of Limitation Act will apply to appeals, both by virtue of Section 43 of Arbitration Act and by virtue of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act.
(2) For appeals filed under Section 37 of Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of Limitation Act or Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule.
(3) Difference between interpretation and legislation is sometimes a fine one. Judges do not merely interpret law but also create law.
(4) Periods of limitation must always to some extent be arbitrary and may result in some hardship, but this is no reason as to why they should not be strictly followed.
(5) Merely because Government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down.

Headnote:

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 8, 37 and 43 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 29(2) read with Articles 116 and 117 – Arbitration appeal – Condonation of limitation period – Section 5 of Limitation Act will apply to appeals, both by virtue of Section 43 of Arbitration Act and by virtue of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – It is only when specified value is for a sum less than three lakh rupees that appellate provision contained in Section 37 of Arbitration Act will be governed, for the purposes of limitation, by Articles 116 and 117 of Limitation Act – Periods of limitation must always to some extent be arbitrary and may result in some hardship, but this is no reason as to why they should not be strictly followed – Even in rare situation in which an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration Act would be of a specified value less than three lakh rupees, resulting in Article 116 or 117 of Limitation Act applying, main object of Arbitration Act requiring speedy resolution of disputes would be the most important principle to be applied when applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act are filed to condone delay beyond 90 days and/or 30 days depending upon whether Article 116(a) or 116(b) or 117 applies – Condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be seen in context of object of speedy resolution of disputes. (Paras 15, 23, 24 and 26)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Interpretation and Legislation – Difference between interpretation and legislation is sometimes a fine one – Judges do not merely interpret law but also create law – Statute must be read as a whole and one provision of Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of whole statute – Court must ascertain intention of legislature by directing its attention not merely to clauses to be construed but to entire statute. (Paras 43 and 52)

(C) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1A) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 read with Articles 116 and 117 – Arbitration appeal – Condonation of limitation period – Merely because sufficient cause has been made out in facts of a given case, there is no right in appellant to have delay condoned – Object is speedy disposal of appeals filed under Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Expression “sufficient cause” contained in Section 5 of Limitation Act is elastic enough to yield different results depending upon object and context of a statute – Expression “sufficient cause” is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond period provided by appeal provision itself – Besides, expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose panacea for ill of pressing negligent and stale claims – Merely because Government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down. (Paras 53, 54, 56, 57 and 60)

(D) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1A) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 read with Articles 116 and 117 – Arbitration appeal – Condonation of limitation period – Given object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under Arbitration Act and Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of Limitation Act or Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule – In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, short delay beyond such period can, in discretion of court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that other side of picture is that opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by first party’s inaction, negligence or laches – In present case, there is a long delay of 131 days beyond 60 day period provided for filing appeal under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act – There is no explanation worth name contained in condonation of delay application, beyond usual file-pushing and administrative exigency – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 61 and 63)

Facts of the case:

Substantial question of law which arises in these appeals is as to whether judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 lays down the law correctly.

Findings of Court:

There is a long delay of 131 days beyond t60 days period provided for filing an appeal under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act. There is no explanation worth the name contained in the condonation of delay application, beyond the usual file-pushing and administrative exigency.

Result : Appeal dismissed.