The expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay must be liberally interpreted to ensure substantial justice is done, as long as negligence in action or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned.

JUDGMENT

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

CM APPL. 27430/2019 [Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal]

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the Impugned Order and Judgment dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.M.P. 668/2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Judgment") passed by the Learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

1.1. The Learned Single Judge by the Impugned Judgment partly modified the award dated 05.06.2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Award") by setting aside the amounts awarded under Clause 8.1 of the contract between the parties and also reduced the future interest awarded by the Arbitrator from 18% to 12% per annum, on the amounts awarded. The Impugned Judgment directed that the payment be made by the Respondent within three months failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum would be payable on the awarded amount.

2. Mr Sudhanshu Batra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present Appeal being filed beyond the period prescribed. It is submitted that the Appeal was filed after a long delay and prior to adjudication of the Appeal, the Application for condonation of delay is required to be decided.

3. Mr Satpal Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal and as such, the Appeal could not be filed in time owing to the peculiar circumstances and events which took place after passing of the Impugned Judgment.

3.1. It is submitted that although the Impugned Judgment is dated 06.12.2018, a certified copy was only made available on 28.01.2019. Reliance has been placed by the Appellant on the certified copy filed along with the Appeal paper book, evidencing the same.

3.2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Appellant, thereafter, took legal advice on whether or not to challenge the Impugned Judgment which was one of the reasons for the delay in filing of the present Appeal. The other reason as per the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was the fact that after passing of the Impugned Judgment, the Respondent filed several Applications before the Learned Single Judge inter-alia for seeking extension of time for making the payment in terms of the Award and requiring the bank account details of the Appellant to make the payment of the amounts awarded. Reliance is placed on the orders dated 11.03.2019, 29.03.2019, 08.05.2019 and 20.05.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge, which have been placed on record along with the Rejoinder filed to this Application.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Appeal has been filed after a 72 days' delay and that the Appellant has not acted with due dispatch and diligence in its filing.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has laid stress on the fact that an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act must be filed within a period of 60 days in terms of the provisions of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "Commercial Courts Act") and that the Appeal is filed beyond the said period.

4.2. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of |State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460| and |Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81|, to submit that condonation of delay in filing an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act, beyond the period provided in the provision, may be granted only upon `sufficient cause' shown by the party. It was further submitted that keeping in mind the objectives of speedy resolution of disputes under the Commercial Court