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 disentitle relief.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

OMP(M) No.116 of 2024
National Highway Authority of India, being the applicant, has filed the instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 289 days of delay in filing the accompanying Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (yet to be registered, with filing No. ARB. A. 19789/2024); assailing order/judgment dated 31.05.2023 [Annexure A-1], [referred to as the Impugned Order], passed by Learned District Judge, Kullu, dismissing the application, CMP No. 24 of 2023 filed in Section 34 proceedings, titled as National Highways Authority of India versus Smt. Salochna Vaidya & Ors., wherein, the belated challenge to the Award passed by the Learned Arbitrator was held as non-entertainable, being time-barred.

FACTUAL MATRIX SETUP BY APPLICANT-NHAI:
2. Applicant, National Highway Authority of India, has set up a case that consequent upon the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, Learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi, being the Arbitrator passed an Award No 1103/2017 on 30.07.2022. Feeling aggrieved, NHAI assailed the Award dated 30.07.2022 before Learned District Judge, Kullu, though belatedly, in proceedings under Section 34 on 24.03.2023 alongwith an application for condonation of delay (i.e. CMP No 24 of 2026) which was dismissed on 30.05.2023, Annexure A-1. The applicant-NHAI assailed the order dated 30.05.2023 by filing an appeal under Section 37 alongwith present application [OMP(M) No. 116 of 2024] with the prayer to condone the delay and to hear the appeal.
2(i). Perusal of application for condonation of delay states that copy of the order/judgment dated 30.05.2023 [Annexure A-1] passed by the Learned District Judge was applied for by counsel for Applicant-NHAI on 03.06.2023 and the same was attested on same day. It is averred that the Applicant–NHAI was never intimated about the disposal of the case and it was on closing of financial year 2023, that the Applicant–NHAI made inquiries about case pendency from its Counsels in Himachal Pradesh and it was on 21.03.2024, that it transpired that some other matters were decided but their outcome was never intimated to the applicant-NHAI by its counsel, namely M/s M.V. Kini & Co and due to inefficiency of the aforesaid law firm, the work was assigned to M/s Nishaank Matto & Associates vide letter dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure A-2). It is averred that in this situation, all the cases were withdrawn from the earlier law firm, M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. on 26.03.2024 (Annexure A-3). It is averred that the applicant finally procured the records on 09.04.2024 and thereafter sought legal opinion and the legal opinion was remitted to Regional Office and the thereafter, the matter was examined at various levels, when, it was decided to challenge the order dated 30.05.2023 and the Award dated 30.07.2022. It is averred that after receiving the decision to assail the order, the applicant-NHAI transmitted the papers to present counsel on 25.04.2024 and the appeal was prepared and was filed before this Court on 14.06.2024. It is averred that certified copy of the orders dated 31.05.2023 got misplaced in transit and fresh copy of orders was applied for by the Applicant–NHAI. It is further averred that this Court had entertained another Arbitration Appeal No, 30/2024, in which Award was stayed by this Court on 23.04.2024 and the case of the applicant-NHAI was similar.
In this backdrop, the Applicant-NHAI submitted that the delay of 289 days in filing the accompanying appeal under , being bonafide, not intentional and beyond the control of Applicant-NHAI, may kindly be condoned and accompanying appeal, may kindly be accepted, after condoning the delay.

STAND OF RESPONDENT(S)-NON-APPLICANTS:
3. Upon listing of the instant application, [OMP(M) No 116 of 2024], before this Court and based on office report that th