Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
The State of Bihar, through the Principle Secretary, Water Resources Department & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Kems Service Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Mr. Mohan Kumar Khandelwal - Opposite Party
Civil Revision No. 84 of 2018
Decided On : 15-04-2024
LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVISION APPLICATION - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5; Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 - Section 8, Section 13; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5, which allows for the condonation of delay, and the specific limitations set forth in the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, particularly Section 13, which mandates a three-month period for filing a revision application. The court emphasized that while the delay could be condoned within a further 30 days as per Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any delay beyond that period could not be condoned. The court ultimately concluded that the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in filing their application, leading to the dismissal of both the condonation application and the revision application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of over three years in filing a revision application against an arbitration award dated 25.11.2014. The delay was attributed to procedural steps taken by the departmental authorities before deciding to file the revision application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not provide a reasonable explanation for the extensive delay in filing the revision application. The court noted that the delay exceeded the permissible period for condonation as outlined in the relevant statutes.
Issues: Whether the delay of 3 years, 3 months, and 25 days in filing the revision application could be condoned under the Limitation Act and the applicable arbitration laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Limitation Act allows for the condonation of delay, the specific provisions of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, impose strict limitations on the time frame for filing revision applications. The court emphasized that any delay beyond the statutory limits cannot be condoned.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the revision application as well.
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarthy, J.
Re. I. A. no.2 of 2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the opposite party.
2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay of 3 years 3 months and 25 days in filing of the instant revision application.
3. Pursuant to the opposite party having participated in the tender process on a notice inviting tender having been published, the work in question was awarded to the opposite party and an agreement bearing Agreement no.1 S.B.D. of 2011-2012 was entered into between the opposite party and the departmental authorities. Some dispute having arisen between the parties led to filing of writ applications in this Court. The matter ultimately traveled to the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal wherein in Reference Case no.26 of 2013 an award dated 25.11.2014 was passed. It is this award dated 25.11.2014 which has been challenged by the petitioners in the civil revision application filed under section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2008’). The application against the award impugned dated 25.11.2014 having been preferred after a delay of 3 years 3 months and 25 days on 20.6.2018, the instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for condonation of delay. Besides the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit.
4. The case of the petitioners in brief is that prior to filing of a civil revision against the award dated 25.11.2014 it was deemed proper to examine the facts and issues. The Department filed a civil review to the award which was registered as Civil Review no.1 of 2015, which was however dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 10.11.2016. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division examined the said order and sent the same to the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 18.12.2016 with a request to consider filing a civil revision application before this Court. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.1.2017 the matter was sent by the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer to consider filing of the civil revision application. The Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 31.1.2017 opined that the civil revision may be filed before this Court. The panel advocate was requested to prepare the statement of facts for filing the application and thereafter on 24.4.2017 the file was sent to the Under Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Department for verification and perusing the statement of fact. The file was then sent to the Principle Secretary of the Department on 9.5.2017 who decided to take the opinion of the Law Department, Government of Bihar and the file was accordingly endorsed to the Department on 16.5.2017. The Law Department returned the file on 17.5.2017 with the opinion to prefer the civil revision against the award dated 25.11.2014 passed in Reference Case no.26 of 2013 as also the order dated 10.11.2016 passed in Civil Review no.1 of 2015. The civil revision application was filed in this Court on 20.6.2018.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the delay being procedural in nature, a justice oriented approach be adopted and the petition for condonation be considered liberally. It was submitted that the delay has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in the case of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others [(1996) 3 SCC 132] and State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. [2000 (3) PLJR (SC) 81].
6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite party opposing the prayer of the petitioners in the limitation petition. It was submitted that the petitioners had miserably failed in explaining the delay of three and half years in filing of the re
AI
The court established that the delay in filing a revision application under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, cannot exceed the statutory limits set forth in t....
The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, allowing the delay of 23 days to be condoned as sufficient cause was explained by the DDA.
The court emphasized a pragmatic approach in determining 'sufficient cause' for delays attributed to government entities, asserting equal application of limitation laws for all parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
Delay beyond 120 days (90+30) in Section 34 petitions or corresponding appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration Act not condonable via Limitation Act Section 5; negligence, inaction, lack of bonafides....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
