The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to condone delay in filing petitions, especially in government litigations, in the interest of justice and public interest.

Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Power of Court - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - [PUBLIC INTEREST] - [Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5] - The judgment discusses the power of the court to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in public interest to avoid denial of substantial justice. The court emphasizes the interpretation of the words 'sufficient cause' in section 5 and highlights the applicability of section 5 in government litigations. The court's decision to condone the delay is influenced by the principles of substantial justice and public interest.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves a delay in filing a petition to set aside an arbitration award. The appellant, the State, filed the petition after a delay of 315 days. The court considered the reasons for the delay, the nature of the claims, and the conduct of the parties.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in filing the petition should be condoned in the interest of justice and public interest. It emphasized that the government should not be penalized for the lapse of its officers or government pleaders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the petition to set aside the arbitration award should be condoned. The court also considered the nature of the claims and the conduct of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that denial of justice on technical grounds should be avoided, and the law of limitation should be applied with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach. It emphasized that the government should not suffer due to the acts of its officers, especially when public interest is involved.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the delay condonation petition. It directed the lower court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, untrammeled by any of the observations in the judgment on the merits of the matter.

Judgment :-

J.B. Koshy, J.

Power of the court to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in Public interest to avoid denial or substantial justice is one of the issues considered in this judgment. For deciding that issues interpretation of the words â€˜sufficient causeâ€™ appearing in section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the facts of each case assumes importance. Common order dismissing I.A.No.1879 of 1997 to set aside the award passed in O.P. (Arb.) No. 19 of 1996 and I.A.No.453 of 2005 to condone the delay in filing the above application are challenged in these proceedings. An award passed by the sole arbitrator was forwarded to the Court by letter dated 8-2-1996 and on getting notice, appellant-State appeared on 30-5-1996. Time was allowed for filing objection. Within the time allowed for filing the objection, State filed I.A.No.1879 of 1997 on 29-3-1997 for setting aside the award. There was delay of 315 days in filling the petition for setting aside the award. When objections were raised on the ground of delay, the Sub Court condoned the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the award by order dated 9-12-1999, even without a formal petition for condoning the delay. It is not disputed that even without a formal petition the Court has got power to condone delay if there are valid and sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Even if an objection is filed incorporating the grounds for setting aside the award, it can be treated as a petitioner to set aside the award as held by the apex Court in Madan Lal v. Sunderlal and another (AIR 1967 SC 1233). However, such petition should also be filed within 30 days of notice of passing award in view of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days for an application under Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside an award from the service of notice of filing the award. It is also well settled that the Court has the power to condone the delay in filing petition for sufficient reasons and section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable as held in Government of AP v. Durgaram Prasad (AIR 1984 AP 14). The court suo motu condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing both sides. The Sub Court considered the matter and passed preliminary order where in it was held as follows:

â€œâ€¦â€¦ the arbitrator has not given notice to the parties and the parties came to know of the publishing of the award on the notice issued by the court. Thereafter the court ordered to file objection and in the course of extended time the present application to set aside the award was filed on 29-3-1997. In such cases it is unfair and illegal to hold that the application is filed out of time.â€

The court also found as follows:

â€œâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦. Notice hasnâ€™t been served on the respondent in compliance with the Act. Since the respondent filed the objection within the extended period, it follows that the court has already condoned the delay and accepted that objection. Therefore, the preliminary objection that the petition is barred by limitation is not entertainable.â€

2. Revision application was filed against the above order as C.R.P. No. 31 of 2000. It was dismissed by this court. Contractor filed review petition R.P.No.578 of 2001 and the Court remitted the matter for consideration whether sufficient ground are there to condone the delay. The delay was 315 days. Again, the Sub Court condoned the delay. The Court observed as follows:

â€œ23. The respondentsâ€™ contention that actually time has been extended as evidenced from the proceedings and the B Diary and that the respondents believed in bonafides that there was extension of time accordingly cannot be ignored. It has earlier been observed as per the impugned order that since the respondent filed objection within the extended period it follows that Court has also ready condoned the delay and accepted the objectionâ€.

The above order was challenged in wri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document