The court emphasized the strict application of the law of limitation and highlighted that delay beyond the prescribed period should be condoned only in exceptional cases where the party has acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner.

JUDGMENT :

1. This order shall disposed of the instant application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by Court of Principal District Judge, Jammu rejecting the application filed by the appellant/applicant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. There is a delay of 319 days which is sought to be condoned.

2. On facts of the present case, Arbitration award dated 14.01.2012 passed by non-applicant No. 3 herein, was thrown challenge to by the applicant herein, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997.

3. The said petition came to be instituted on 26.03.2012 and dismissed on 05.11.2015 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Jammu. The said order is being questioned by the applicant in a time barred appeal under Section 37 of the Act accompanied with the instant application for condonation of delay.

4. In the application, it is being stated that the applicant herein, has been subjected to harassment by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which landed him with a serious heart disease in the year 2010.

5. The applicant contends that his wife also suffered major heart attack on account of severe depression caused due to the cancellation of a contract at the hands of the respondent No. 1 and 2.

6. It is being contended that the petitioner being a heart patient was advised by the doctors to avoid travelling as such, had engaged a counsel for filing of the appeal who could not file the same on account of ill health of the applicant and his wife. The applicant states to have suffered a major heart attack in May 2016 resulting into a surgery and his confinement to bed.

7. It is being contended that despite under adverse circumstances, the applicant contacted the counsel who had apprised him that an execution proceeding is going on and that an attachment warrant qua his property stands issued. On account of his ill health and of his wife, the applicant states to have not filed the appeal in time. The medical record of the year 2010 and 2016 is placed on record in support of the contentions raised in the application reflecting the medical history of the applicant.

8. Per contra non-applicants have filed objections and resisted and controverted the contentions raised by the applicant and as such, seek dismissal of the application primarily on the premise that the applicant, a contractor had been allotted a work for execution by non-applicants with date of commencement as 24.09.2005 and date of completion as 23.07.2006 which work was not completed by the applicant, even after four years resulting into cancellation of the contract w.e.f. 29.06.2010 whereupon arbitration proceedings were taken recourse to and respondent No. 3, Arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs. 30,90,227.02/- in favor of the non-applicants and against the applicant.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the parties made their submissions in line with contentions raised in their respective pleadings.

11. Before adverting to the application in hand, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of "Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs. M/S Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd." reported in "2021 SCC online SC 233" being relevant and germane herein, wherein at para 61 following is laid down:-

"Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period c