Timely filing of appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is crucial; bureaucratic delays are inadequate reasons for condoning significant delays.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act.] , arises from the Judgment dated 21.12.2012, [Impugned Judgement.], passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. No. 432/2011. By the said judgment, the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the A&C Act was partly allowed against the Arbitral Award dated 24.02.2011, [Arbitral Award.], passed in Case No.ARB/RJB/122 by the Sole Arbitrator.

2. At the outset, it is apposite to recount the chequered procedural history of the matter. The present appeal was initially disposed of by this Court on 08.01.2014. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant preferred Review Petition No. 323/2015, which, however, met with the same fate and was dismissed on 02.09.2016. Against these Orders, the Appellant thereafter invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 1050-1051 of 2025, [SLP(C) No. 17307-17308/2017.]

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 27.01.2025, set aside the aforesaid orders and directed restoration of the present appeal to the file of this Court. While so directing, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered certain observations and issued directions in the following terms:-

“1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. An award was made by the Arbitral Tribunal against the appellant. A petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. By the impugned order, the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground that the impugned award has been executed.

5. On first principles, the appeal could not have been dismissed on that ground. If the award is set aside, principles of restitution will apply. The impugned order is set aside only on that ground and FAO No (OS) No.1/2014 along with CM No.93 of 2014 is restored to the file of the High Court.

6. The restored case shall be listed before the Roster Bench on 14'" February, 2024 in the morning. Parties who are represented today shall be under an obligation to remain present before the Roster Bench on that day and no further notice will be issued by the High Court. All questions on merits are left open to be decided by the High Court in that behalf.

7. The High Court shall proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law. Registry to communicate this order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

8. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, at the outset, without going into the factual controversies of the appeal, we now propose to examine the Appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal bearing C.M. No. 93/2014.

5. It is, therefore, appropriate to set out the material averments contained in the application for condonation of delay, which read as follows:-

“1. That Appellant above-named has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2012 passed by Ld. Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in a Original Miscellaneous Petition bearing number OMP No. 432 of 2011 disposing of the objections petition preferred by the Appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, titled "Union of India versus Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt Ltd.", and thereby upholding arbitration award, dated 24.02.2011, passed by the Ld. Arbitrator. The detailed facts are set out in the appeal are not being repeate