IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
State Of U.P. And Others – Appellant
Versus
Rajveer Singh And Another – Appellant
Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. -619 of 2023
Decided on : 18-03-2024
Arbitration Act - Delay in Filing Appeal - The court held that 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. The legislation aims for speedy disposal, and delay can only be allowed if a strong case and reasons for delay are provided.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with a substantial delay of four years.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, citing the lack of sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal.
Issues: Substantial delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act can only be condoned in exceptional cases where the party has acted bona fide and not negligently.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arising out of an order passed under Section 34 of the Act.
3. There is a substantial delay of four years in filing this appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents relied upon a judgment in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 to submit that such a delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act cannot be allowed. Relevant paragraph relied upon by counsel appearing on behalf of respondents is delineated below :-
5. A coordinate Bench of this Court in National Highway Authority of India Vs. Smt. Sampata Devi and Ors. reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 787, in similar facts and circumstances, discussed in great detail a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and has come to the following conclusion :-
(45) Further, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and in holding the said applicability, the Apex Court noted with affirmative that Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act does not contain any provision akin to section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and merely provides for a limitation period of 60 days from the date of the judgment or order appealed against, without going into whether delay beyond this period can or cannot be condoned.
(46) Further, the expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not elastic enough to cover long delays and merely because sufficient cause has been made out, there is no right to have such delay condoned. The Apex Court further held that only short delays, can be condoned only by way of an exception and not by the way of rule, and that too only when the party acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.
(47) Since, in the present bunch of appeals, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Barabanki under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been sought to be challenged by NHAI by filing a belated appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 beyond the permissible 60 days without any "sufficient cause", the above-captioned appeals are held to be time barred."
6. Upon a perusal of the above judgment, it is clear that the Arbitration Act being a legislation for speedy redressal, the delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the appellant makes out a very strong case and explains the reasons for dela
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.
The court established that appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed within 60 days, with a grace period of 30 days, and that delays beyond this period are not to....
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 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 limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is strict and cannot be extended beyond 120 days, emphasizing the need for time....
The Court held that the 60-day limitation for appeals under the Arbitration Act is strict and can only be extended in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is demonstrated, which was not establish....
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....
Delay beyond statutory limits in filing an appeal under the Arbitration Act cannot be condoned.
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals under the Arbitration Act must be justified by sufficient cause, with negligence being insufficient for condonation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.