Back
AVNEESH JHINGAN
Kaku Rice Mill – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for appeal and delay explanation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition to delay condonation prayer. (Para 3) |
| 3. criteria for condoning delay in appeals. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. insufficient cause for delay cannot be condoned. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal as time barred. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral)
This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') is accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay of 229 days and 234 days delay in filing and re-filing the appeal, respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that proprietor of the concern is a heart patient and was under regular treatment. It is further submitted that after recovery from illness he approached the counsel, applied for certified copy and filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the prayer.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to cite following decisions:
5. The Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another , 2008 (17) SCC 448 , has held as under:
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 bon....
The court established that delays in appeals under the Arbitration Act are to be strictly limited, with condonation only in exceptional circumstances where compelling reasons are provided.
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals under the Arbitration Act must be justified by sufficient cause, with negligence being insufficient for condonation.
The expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay must be liberally interpreted to ensure substantial justice is done, as long as negligence in action or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed....
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.
The court established that the limitation period for appeals under the Arbitration Act is 60 days as per the Commercial Courts Act, but delays can be condoned based on sufficient cause, including rel....
The court emphasized that appeals under the Arbitration Act must adhere to strict timelines, and administrative delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of condonation of delay should be applied judiciously, taking into account the circumstances and the impact of external factors s....
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
