Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
M/s Inderjit Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 179 of 2019 & CM Appl.34000 of 2019, 920 of 2021, 922 of 2021 & 29668 of 2021
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Ms Monika Arora, CGSC, for the Appellant.
Mr Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with Mr Aakash Dubey, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The importance of complying with statutory timelines and the rejection of bureaucratic processes as grounds for condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Appeal - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Commercial Courts Act - Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging an arbitral award, but there was a delay of 317 days in filing the appeal. The court directed the appellant to file an application for amending the appeal and for condonation of delay, but the appellant failed to do so. The court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal and all pending applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained and rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, application for condonation of delay, compliance with statutory timelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings and proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act. It held that bureaucratic processes and pursuing other remedies cannot be accepted as grounds for condoning a long period of delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, directing the registry to release the balance amount deposited by the appellant to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
1. The present Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge [hereinafter referred to as, "Impugned Judgment"] which dismissed a challenge to Arbitral Award dated 28.12.2016 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Award"] made by the Appellant herein.
1.1. There is a delay of 317 days in filing the Appeal.
2. This Court had on 03.11.2022, briefly heard the matter and passed the following directions:
"1. Ms Monika Arora, CGSC, who appears on behalf of the appellant/UOI, says that against the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2018 a review petition was preferred i.e.. Review Petition No.361/2019.
1.1 We are told, that the said review petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 17.01.2020.
2. Ms Arora says that the appellant/Union of India (UOI) would like to move an amendment application, along with a condonation of delay application, to enable it to assail the order passed in the review petition.
2.1 Accordingly, Ms Arora seeks accommodation.
3. Mr Praveen Chauhan, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that there was delay, in not only filing the appeal, but also in preferring the review petition.
3.1 In filing the appeal, there has been a delay of 317 days.
3.2 Insofar as the review petition in O.M.P. (COMM) 244/2017 was concerned, there was a delay of 439 days.
4. The application filed for condonation of delay in preferring the review petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the same date i.e., 17.01.2020.
5. According to us, Mr Chauhan is right, that before we proceed further, the appellant/UOI would have to explain the delay in filing the appeal.
6. As noticed above, the review petition, which was impregnated with delay, was dismissed on 17.01.2020, despite which no alacrity was shown by the appellant/UOI.
7. We are in November 2022, and up until now, no steps have been taken to prefer an amendment application.
7.1 However, this aspect of the matter will be examined on the next date of hearing, that is, if and when an application is moved on behalf of the appellant/UOI for amendment, and condonation of delay."
3. Today, Ms Monika Arora, CGSC who appears on behalf of the Appellant, has handed over a hard copy of the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in the Review Petition [i.e., Review Petition No. 244/2017].
3.1. Mr Praveen Chauhan, who appears on behalf of the Respondent, has also handed over a hard copy of the Review Petition as filed before the Learned Single Judge and submitted that the legal grounds as taken in the present Appeal and the Review Petition are substantially the same. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Review Petition on merits as well as for delay in its filing - a delay of 439 days. Learned counsel for the Appellant fairly concedes this position to be correct.
4. As can be seen from our order dated 03.11.2022, an opportunity was granted to the Appellant to file an application for amending the Appeal, to assail the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in the Review Petition. Ms Arora had also indicated that she would also be filing an appropriate application for condoning this delay as well. At the request of Ms Arora, the matter was directed to be listed on 08.12.2022. On that day, an accommodation was sought on behalf of Ms Arora as she could not appear in the matter.
4.1. In these circumstances, we had posted the matter today while noting that an Application seeking amendment of the Appeal along with an Application for condonation of delay had not been filed as yet.
5. The position today is no different, neither has any Application seeking amendment of the Appeal been filed, nor has an appropriate Application for condonation of delay in seeking an amendment been placed on record by the Appellant.
6. Appeals under the provision of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are required to be filed wit
