Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Chairman and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Inderjeet Singh Jadon, Through Proprietor Inderjeet Singh Jadon, S/o. Sh. Kiran Singh Ji Jadon - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1702 Of 2019
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Delay Condonation - Arbitration - The court dismissed the appeal due to the objectors' failure to provide a bona fide explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and for not procuring the certified copy of the impugned order in a timely manner.
Fact of the Case:
The objectors filed an appeal against the dismissal of their objections challenging an arbitration award. The appeal was filed 408 days after the objections were dismissed, and the objectors failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objectors did not provide a bona fide reason for the delay in filing the appeal and for procuring the certified copy of the impugned order. As a result, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.
Issues: The main issue was the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the objectors' failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objectors failed to explain the day-to-day delay and did not provide a bona fide reason for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal, resulting in the original order dismissing the objections challenging the arbitration award to stand.
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-objectors (for short ‘the objectors’) against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Arbitration Case No.175/2016 CIS No.86/2016, whereby the objections filed by the objectors challenging the award dated 09.01.2016 passed by sole Arbitrator, have been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the objectors submits that the trial court wrongly dismissed the objections filed by the objectors under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel for the objectors also submits that the said order was passed by the trial court on 17.11.2017. The present appeal was filed by the objectors on 05.04.2019. The said appeal is time barred by 408 days but the objectors had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in which objectors had explained the delay caused in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the objectors also submits that application for procuring the impugned order was moved and copy was provided on 08.02.2019. After that, objectors sought the legal opinion and got approval from the Competent Authority. Thereafter, due to winter vacations, appeal could not be filed. So, delay in filing the appeal be condoned because delay is bona fide. Learned counsel for the objectors also drew the attention of this Court towards the order dated 11.09.2019 in which inadvertently, delay condoned was not mentioned but co-ordinate bench of this Court was satisfied and issued notices and also stayed the execution of the award dated 09.01.2016 and order dated 17.11.2017. So, application filed by the objectors under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be allowed. Learned counsel for the objectors has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2461/2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.10311/2005) decided on 03.04.2008 and (2) Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/s Satish Steel Traders & Ors. in RSA No.325/2014 decided on 02.02.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the objectors and submitted that the present appeal was filed after a delay of 408 days. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in arbitration proceedings. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that lower court had passed the order on 17.11.2017. After that, non cross-objector-claimant had filed the execution petition before the Court in which objectors had put in appearance on 06.10.2018. So, delay in filing of the present appeal is not justified by the objectors. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that there is no explanation regarding late procuring the copy of order. So, appeal filed by the objectors be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. M/s Satish Chand Shivhare & Brothers in SLP (Civil) No.5301/2022 decided on 04.04.2022.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the objectors as well as learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant.
6. It is an admitted position that objections filed by the objectors were dismissed by the court below on 17.11.2017 and present appeal was filed by the objectors on 05.04.2019 after an inordinate delay of 408 days. Objectors had not explained day-today delay in filing the appeal. As per contention of the non cross-objector-claimant, non cross-objector-claimant had filed the execution petition in which objectors had put in appearance on 06.10.2018. No cogent and bona fide reason was given by the objectors for procuring the certified copy of the impugned order on 08.02.2019. So, in my considered
Failure to provide a bona fide explanation for inordinate delay in filing an appeal may result in the dismissal of the appeal.
Technical faults in online filing excuse delay in arbitration appeals; condonation warranted despite Limitation Act inapplicability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a special statute provides a specified period of limitation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application, and challenges against a....
The court emphasized the strict timelines prescribed in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Limitation Act, and held that delays beyond the statutory periods cannot be condoned.
Setting aside or refusing to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of Act and an appeal lies where an order is passed under Section 34.
Delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be condoned in exceptional cases where the party has acted bona fide and not negligently.
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....
The judgment establishes the strict interpretation and application of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the requirement for sufficient cause and the mandat....
The limitation for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
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
